PR 1905 
.H8 
Copy 2 



FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 



CHAUCER'S OFFICIAL LIFE 



A DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF AB' 
LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF /, 



DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

(department of ENGLISH) 



\ 



BY 
JAMES ROOT HULBERT 





MENASHA, WIS. 

THE COLLEGIATE PRESS 

GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING 00. 

1912 






\ 



®I|p Itttttprattg of Qltitrago 

FOUNDED BY JOHN D. KOCKEFELLER 



CHAUCER'S OFFICIAL LIFE 



A DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND 

LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OP 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

(departsient of English) 



BY 

JAMES ROOT HULBERT 



MENASHA, WIS. 

THE COLLEGIATE PRESS 

GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING CO. 

1912 



^^ 



\^0^ 



.P' 



v^^ 



1^ 



■ill 



NOTE 

In making reference to books and manuscripts, I have attempted 
to use abbreviations which seem reasonably clear. Perhaps the 
least intelligible are C. R. which stands for Close Rolls, and L. R. 
which stands for Life Records of Chaucer (Chaucer Soc.) Wher- 
ever possible, I have referred to prints rather than to original man- 
uscripts because the printed calendars are much more accessible. 
In a work which has involved the copying of innumerable refer- 
ences, many of which are to documents in the Public Record Office 
not available to me as I revise my copy, it is too much to expect 
that there should be no inaccuracies. Therefore, if the reader dis- 
covers erroneous references, I must ask his leniency. 

For their courtesy and assistance in making books and docu- 
ments accessible to me, I wish most heartily to thank J. A. Herbert, 
Esq., of the Manuscript Department, the British Museum, and Ed- 
ward Salisbury, Esq., and Hubert Hall, Esq., of the Public Record 
Office. To my friend and colleague. Dr. Thomas A. Knott, of the 
University of Chicago, I am deeply indebted for his kindness in 
reading over parts of my manuscript and trying to make their style 
clearer and more readable. My greatest obligation, however, is to 
Professor John M. Manly, not only for encouragement and specific 
suggestions as to the handling of this subject, but for a training 
which has made possible whatever in my results may be considered 
of value. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction : Statement of the problem 1 

The Esquires op the King's Household: 

Their Families q 

Appointment j2 

Classification ]^3 

Services jg 

Rewards . . 20 

Marriage 25 

Careers of the Esquires of 1368 27 

The Justices op the Peace . 37 

The Customs ' .... 42 

Sir John de Burley 43 

Sir Edward de Berkeley 49 

Sir Thomas de Percy 49 

Sir William de Beauchamp 50 

Richard Forester 52 

Henry Scogan 54 

Oto de Graunson 54 

BUKTON 54 

Chaucer's Career and His Relation to John op Gaunt . 56 

Chaucer's Relation to Richard II 63 

Some General Points 64 



INTRODUCTION 

The researches of Sir Harris Nicolas, Dr. Furnivall, Mr. Selby 
and others have provided us with a considerable mass of detailed 
information regarding the life and career of Geoffrey Chaucer. 
Since the publication of Nicolas 's biography of the poet prefixed 
to the Aldine edition of Chaucer's works in 1845, the old traditional 
biography of conjecture and inference, based often on mere proba- 
bility or the contents of works erroneously ascribed to Chaucer, has 
disappeared and in its place has been developed an accurate biog- 
raphy based on facts. In the sixty-five years since Nicolas 's time, 
however, a second tradition — connected in some way with fact, to 
be sure — has slowly grown up. Writers on Chaucer's life have 
not been content merely to state the facts revealed in the records, 
but, in their eagerness to get closer to Chaucer, have drawn many 
questionable inferences from those facts. Uncertain as to the exact 
significance of the various appointments which Chaucer held, his 
engagement in diplomatic missions and his annuities, biographers 
have thought it necessary to find an explanation for what they sup- 
pose to be remarkable favours, and have assumed — cautiously in 
the case of careful scholars but boldly in that of popular writers — 
that Chaucer owed every enhancement of his fortune to his "great 
patron" John of Gaunt. In greater or less degree this conception 
appears in every biography since Nicolas. Professor Minto in his 
Encyclopedia Brittanica article ^ says with regard to the year 
1386: "that was an unfortunate year for him; his patron, John of 
Gaunt, lost his ascendancy at court, and a commission which sat to 
inquire into the abuses of the preceding administration superseded 
Chaucer in his two comptrollerships. The return of Lancaster to 
power in 1389 again brightened his prospects; he was appointed 
clerk of the King 's works, ' ' etc. 

Similarly, Dr. Ward in his life of Chaucer, after mentioning 
that Chaucer and John of Gaunt were of approximately the same 
age, writes : ^ " Nothing could, accordingly, be more natural than 
that a more or less intimate relationship should have formed itself 
between them. This relation, there is reason to believe, afterwards 

1 Ed. Scribners 1878, vol. 5, p. 450. 

=* English Men of Letters. Harpers. 1879, p. 66. 



2 Chaucer's official life 

ripened on Chaucer's part into one of distinct political partisan 
ship." With regard to the loss of the controllerships Dr. Ward 
writes:^ "The new administration" (i. e. that of Gloucester and 
his allies) "had as usual demanded its victims — and among their 
number was Chaucer. . . . The explanation usually given is 
that he fell as an adherent of John of Gaunt ; perhaps a safer way 
of putting the matter would be to say that John of Gaunt was no 
longer in England to protect him." A little further on occurs the 
suggestion that Chaucer may have been removed because of "his 
previous official connection with Sir Nicholas Brembre, who, be- 
sides being hated in the city, had been accused of seeking to com- 
pass the deaths of the Duke and of some of his adherents. ' ' - Later, 
in connection with a discussion of Chaucer's probable attitude to- 
ward Wiclif, Dr. Ward writes.-? "Moreover, as has been seen, his 
long connexion with John of Gaunt is a well-established fact; and 
it has thence been concluded that Chaucer fully shared the opin- 
ions and tendencies represented by his patron." 

Dr. Ward's treatment is cautious and careful compared to that 
of Prof. Henry Morley in his ' ' English Writers. ' ' For example, the 
latter writes : * " Lionel lived till 1368, but we shall find that in 
and after 1358 Chaucer's relations are with John of Gaunt, and the 
entries in the household of the Countess Elizabeth might imply no 
more than that Chaucer, page to John of Gaunt, was detached for 
service of the Countess upon her coming to London." A few pages 
further on - in the same volume occurs a paragraph on the life of 
John of Gaunt glossed "Chaucer's Patron." With regard to the 
grants of a pitcher of ^\^ne daily, and the two controllerships, Pro- 
fessor Morley writes : "^ " These successive gifts Chaucer owed to 
John of Gaunt, who, in this last period of his father's reign, took 
active part in the administration." And again, '^ "John of Gaunt 
had administered affairs of government. It was he, therefore, 
Avho had so freely used the power of the crown to bestow marks of 
favor upon Chaucer." ^"It was his patron the Duke, therefore, 
who, towards the end of 1376, joined Chaucer with Sir John Bur- 
ley, in some secret service of which the nature is not known." 

ip. 104. 

2 It is curious that Dr. Ward did not realize that Chaucer could not possibly have 
belonged to the parties of John of Gaunt and of Brembre. 
»p. 134. 
*Vol. 5, p. 98. ^p. 103. f']). 107. "p. 109. « p. 110. 



INTRODUCTION 6 

Finally, after mentioning Chaucer's being "discharged" from his 
controllerships, Morley writes : ^ " During all this time Chaucer 's 
patron John of Gaunt was away with an army in Portugal. ' ' 

Such absolute certainty and boldness of statement as Professor 
]\Iorley's is scarcely found again in reputable writers on Chaucer. 
Professor Lounsbury in his life of Chaucer implies rather cautiously 
that Chaucer lost his places in the Customs because of John of 
Gaunt 's absence from the country, and as the result of an investi- 
gation of the customs.- Mr. Jusserand in his Literary History of 
England writes : ^ " For having remained faithful to his protectors, 
the King and John of Gaunt, Chaucer, looked upon with ill favour 
by the men then in power, of whom Gloucester was the head, lost his 
places and fell into want." F. J. Snell in his Age of Chaucer has 
similar statements, almost as bold as those of Professor Morley. 
*"John of Gaunt was the poet's life-long friend and patron." 
^ ' ' Chaucer was now an established favourite of John of Gaunt, 
through whose influence apparently he was accorded this desir- 
able post," (i. e., the first controllership. ) Most remarkable of all : ® 
"Outwardly, much depended on the ascendency of John of Lan- 
caster. If the Duke of Lancaster prospered, Chaucer prospered 
with him. When the, Duke of Gloucester was uppermost, the poet's 
sky was over cast, and he had hard work to keep himself afloat. ' ' 

The last quotations which I shall give on this point are from 
Skeat's life of Chaucer prefixed to the single volume edition of the 
poet 's works in the Oxford series :'' "As the duke of Gloucester 
was ill disposed towards his brother John, it is probable that we 
can thus account for the fact that, in December of this year, Chaucer 
was dismissed from both his offices, of Comptroller of Wool and 
Comptroller of Petty Customs, others being appointed in his place. 
This sudden and great loss reduced the poet from comparative 
wealth to poverty; he Avas compelled to raise money upon his 
pensions, which were assigned to John Scalby on May 1, 1388." 
On the same page : ' ' 1389. On May 3, Richard II suddenly took 
the government into his own hands. John of Gaunt returned to 
England soon afterwards, and effected an outward reconciliation 
between the King and the Duke of Gloucester. The Lancastrian 

ip. 243. = studies in Chaucer, vol. I, pp. 81-83. ^ gng. trans., 1894, p. 312. * p. 
131. »p. 149. 6 p. 230. 'p. XIII. 



4 Chaucer's official life 

party was now once more in power, and Chancer was appointed 
Clerk of the King's Works," etc. 

Closely connected with the question of Chaucer's relations with 
John of Gaunt, and indeed fundamental to it — as the constant 
reference in the foregoing extracts to the grants wiiich Chaucer 
held would indicate — is the problem of the significance of Chaucer's 
annuities, offices, and diplomatic missions. Extracts from two 
writers on Chaucer's life will show how this problem has been 
treated. Professor Hales in his D. N. B. article ^ says of the first 
pension from the King: "This pension, it vnll be noticed, is given 
for good service done. . . . The pension is separate from his 
pay as a 'valettus' and must refer to some different service." 
Similarly Professor Lounsbury in his Studies in Chaucer writes : ^ 
"It is from the statement in this document about services already 
rendered that the inference is drawn that during these years he 
had been in close connection with the court." In regard to the 
grant of the wardship of Edward Staplegate, he says : ^ " This 
was a common method of rewarding favorites of the crown. In 
the roll which contains this grant it is said to be conferred upon 
'our beloved esquire.' " By way of comment on the grant of a 
pitcher of wine daily, he writes : * " Though never graced with the 
title of poet laureate, Chaucer obtained at this same period what 
came to be one of the most distinguishing perquisites which at- 
tached itself to that office in later times." With regard to the 
offices : ^ " Chaucer was constantly employed in civil offices at 
home and in diplomatic missions abroad. In both cases it is very 
certain that the positions he filled were never in the nature of sine- 
cures. " As to the diplomatic missions " — "Their number and their 
variety, treating as they do of questions of peace and war, show the 
versatility of his talents as well as his wide knowledge of affairs. 
Nor can I avoid feeling that his appointment upon so many mis- 
sions, some of them of a highly delicate and important nature, is 
presumptive evidence that he was not a young man at the time and 
must therefore have been born earlier than 1340 .... these 
appointments are proofs that can hardly be gainsaid of the value 
put upon his abilities and services. Then, as now, there must have 
been plenty of persons of ample leisure and lofty connections who 

» Vol. 10, p. 157. 2 Vol. 1, p. 61. » idem, p. 65. * idem, p. 63. = idem, p. 66. 
* idem, p. 70. 



INTRODUCTION 5 

were both ready and anxious to be pressed into the service of the 
state. That these should have been passed by, and a man chosen 
instead not furnished with high birth and already furnished with 
other duties, is a fact which indicates, if it does not show con- 
vincingly, the confidence reposed in his capacity and judgment." 
With regard to the controllership. Professor Lounsbury writes : ^ 
"The oath which Chaucer took at his appointment was the usual 
oath. , . . He was made controller of the port because he had 
earned the appointment by his services in various fields of activity, 
and because he was recognized as a man of business, fully qualified 
to discharge its duties." ^ "In 1385 he was granted a much greater 
favor" (than the right to have a deputy for the petty customs). 
"On the 17th of February of that year he obtained the privilege 
of nominating a permanent deputy. . . . It is possible that in 
the end it wrought him injury, so far as the retention of the post 
was concerned." 

A merely casual reading of such statements as those I have 
given above must make it clear that they attempt to interpret the 
facts which we have about Chaucer, without taking into considera- 
tion their setting and connections — conditions in the courts of 
Edward III and Richard II, and the history of the period.^ Surely 
it is time for an attempt to gain a basis of fact upon which we may 
judge the real significance of Chaucer's grants and his missions 
and from which we may determine as far as possible his relations 
with John of Gaunt. In the following pages then, I shall attempt 
first to discover the relative importance of Chaucer's place in the 
court, and the significance of his varied employments, and secondly 
to find out the certain connections between Chaucer and John of 
Gaunt. The means which I shall employ is that of a study of the 
lives of Chaucer's associates — his fellow esquires, and justices of the 
peace, and his friends — and a comparison of their careers with that 
of Chaucer to determine whether or not the grants he received indi- 
cate special favour or patronage, and whether it is necessary to 
assume the patronage of John of Gaunt in particular to explain 
any step in his career. 

* Studies in Chaucer, p. 72. - idem, p. 74. ^ jj^jg foj. example the statement on page 
3 above that "the Duke of Gloucester was ill-disposed towards his brother John." 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING'S HOUSEHOLD 

Their Families 

We have the names of the esquires of the king's household in 
two lists of 1368 and 1369, printed in the Chaucer Life Records.^ 
In the study of the careers of these esquires the most difficult prob- 
lem is to determine the families from which they were derived. 
Had they come from great families, of course, it would not have 
been hard to trace their pedigrees. But a long search through 
county histories and books of genealogy, has revealed the families 
of only a few, and those few in every case come from an unim- 
portant line. It is clear then that they never were representatives 
of highly important families. A statement of the antecedents of 
such esquires as I have been able to trace, the names arranged in 
alphabetical order, follows. 

John Beauchamp was almost certainly either that John Beau- 
champ of Holt who was executed in 1386, or his son. In either 
case he was descended from a younger branch of the Beauchamps 
of Warwick.- 

Patrick Byker, who was King's "artillier" in the tower of 
London,-^ was the son of John de Byker who had lield the same 
office before liim.'* William Byker, probably a relative, is men- 
tioned from aliout 1370 on as holding tliat office.'"' I have been 
able to learn nothing further about tlie family. 

Nicholas Careu: in the records one finds reference to Nicholas 
Careu the elder and Nicholas Careu the younger.* Since the elder 
Avas guardian of the privy seal from 1372 to 1377 " and in 1377 was 
one of the executors of the will of Edward III, it seems likely that 
the esquire was Nicholas Careu the younger. At any rate the 
younger was the son of the older ^ and they were certainly members 
of the family of Careu in Surrey.^ The pedigrees of this family 
do not show Nicholas the younger (so far as I have found). But 
a Nicholas, Baron Carew, who may have been the keeper of the 

» See page 13 ff. = Issues, P. 232, mem. 26. Peerage of England, Scotland, etc., by 
G. E. C, vol. 1, p. 278. 3 1362 Cal. C. R., p. 373. * 35 Edw. Ill, p. 174 Cal. Rot. Pat. 
in Turr. Lon. "Devon's Issues, 1370, p. 33, Issues, P. 303, mem. 14. "Ancient Deeds 
10681. 'Rymer, p. 9.51, 1069. » C. R. 229, mem. 33 dorso, 12 Rich. II. » 1378 Cal. Pat. 
Roll, p. 143, 1381-5 Cal. Pat. Roll, passim, Cal. Inq. P. M. Ill, 125. 



THE ESQUIRES OP THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 7 

privy seal, does occur.^ The name of his son, as given in the pedi- 
gree, is not Nicholas ; consequently Nicholas, the younger, was prob- 
ably not his eldest son. This last supposition is supported by certain 
statements in Westcote's Devonshire - where we are told that "Sir 
Nicholas Carew, Baron, of Carew Castle, Montgomery in "Wales, 
married the daughter of Sir Hugh Conway of Haccomb, and had 
issue Thomas, Nicholas, Hugh," etc. 

Roger Clebury. In Westcote 's Devonshire ^ occurs an account 
of a family named Cloberry, of Bradston. In the course of his 
statement, which is devoid of dates or mention of lands other than 
Bradston, Westcote refers to two Rogers. 

Several men of the name of William de Clopton are mentioned 
in the county histories. Unfortunately no facts appear in the 
records to connect any one of them with the esquire of that name. 
At any rate from the accounts given in Gage * and Morant ° the fol- 
lowing pedigree is clear : 



Sir William de Clopton Thomas de Clopton 

(20 Edw. Ill) I 



Sir William, Edmund, John, Walter, Thomas William 

The elder Sir William, according to Gage, married first Anet, 
daughter of Sir Thomas de Grey, and secondly Mary, daughter 
of Sir William Cockerel. With his second wife he received 
the manor and advowson of Hawsted and lands in Hawsted, 
Nowton, Great and Little Horningsherth and Bury St. Edmunds. 
Morant speaks of the family as an ancient one and traces it back 
to the time of Henry I. 

Robert de Corby was son of Robert and Joan de Corby.*^ His 
father had been yeoman in the King's court and had received a 
number of grants from the King.'' 

Collard, or Nicholas, Dabrichecourt was a son of Nicholas 
Dabrichecourt, brother of Sir Eustace Dabridgecourt of War- 
wickshire.® The latter had won the favor of Philippa in France 
and had come to England when she was married to Edward III. 

^Visitation of Surrey Harleian Soc. p. 17. -p. 528. Of course it is not certain that 
this Sir Nicholas was the Keeper of the Privy Seal. * p. 555. ■• Gage's History of Suf- 
folk: Thingoe Hundred, p. 419. ^ Morant's Essex, vol. 2, p. 321. "Pat. Roll 291, mem. 1. 
"Cal. C. R., p. 496 (1345). Cal. Rot. Pat. Turr. Lon. 88 Edw. Ill, p. 178 b. » Visit 
of War (Harl.) p. 47, Beltz Mem. of Garter, p. 90. 



8 Chaucer's official life 

George Felbrigge was, according to Blomefield^s Norfolk/ de- 
scended from a younger branch of the Bigods, The head of this 
family was the Earl of Norfolk. 

Sir Simon, third son of Hugh, Earl of Norfolk 

I 
Sir Roger 



Sir Simon John le Bigod 

Sir Roger Roger le Bigod 

Sir Simon Sir George 

The younger branch of the family had assumed the name of 
Felbrigge from a town of that name in Norfolk. As will be seen, 
George Felbrigge came from tlie younger branch of a younger 
branch of the family, and his ancestors seem to have been neither in- 
tluential nor wealthy. 

Robert de Ferrer's pedigree was as follows: - 

John Ferrers = Hawise d. of Sir Robert IMuscegros. 
Baron Ferrers | 

Robert, 2nd baron = Agnes (?) d. of Humphrey Bohun, 

Earl of Hereford 



John, 3rd baron Robert 

obit. 2 Apr. 1367 died 1381 

Since his brother died only a year before the date of the first 
of the lists, it is very likely that Robert became a member of the 
King's household, wliile still a younger son. His father, Robert, 
second baron Ferrers, was one of the Knights of the King's Cham- 
ber. He fought in the campaigns in France and Flanders. 

Thomas Frowyk was probably a member of a prominent London 
family of merchants. Lysons writes of the family as follows : ^ 
"The manor of Oldfold was at a very early period the property 
of the Frowyks or Frowicks. Henry Frowyk, who was settled at 
London in 1329, was sixth in descent from Thomas Frowyk of the 
Oldfold, the first person mentioned in the pedigree of the family. 
. . . . Thomas Frowyk, a younger brother of Henry above men- 
tioned, inherited the Oldfold estate, which continued in the family 
till his grandson's time." This Thomas Frowyk is mentioned in 
the Close Rolls between 1351 and 1353 as Justice of the Peace for 

^ Vol. 8, p. 107 ff. - Baker's Northampton, vol. 1, p. 123. ^ Parishes in Middlesex, 
etc., p. 228. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 9 

Middlesex, and in ^ 27 Edward III as lieutenant of the Queen's 
steward. 

The connections of Thomas Hauteyn are not quite so clear but 
apparently he likewise was derived from a family of London mer- 
chants. Blomefield's Norfolk- tells of a family of Hauteyns of 
knightly rank. Sir John Hauteyn probably became a citizen of 
London in 16 Edward II and was subsequently receiver of the 
King's customs of wool at London. Even earlier than this, in 15 
Edward I, a Walter Hawteyn was sheriff of London.^ In 7 Edward 
III a John Hawteyn was alderman of a ward in London.* We can 
suppose some connection between Thomas Hauteyn and this family 
because he held certain tenements in London.'* 

John de Herlyng, who was usher of the King's chamber and 
the most important of the esquires in Chaucer's time, came of a 
family settled in Norfolk. Blomefield gives a pedigree of the fam- 
ily beginning with this John de Herlyng,® but is unable to trace his 
ancestry definitely. He finds mention of a certain Odo de Herlyng, 
but is forced to the conclusion that the family was an unimportant 
one before the time of John de Herlyng. 

With regard to Rauf de Knyveton very little information is 
forthcoming. Glover 's Derby '' gives the pedigree of a family of 
Knivetons who possessed the manor of Bradley and says that there 
was a younger branch of the family which lived at Mercaston. 
Ralph, though not specifically mentioned, may have been a younger 
son of one of these branches. 

Although Helmyng Leget was an important man in his own 
time — sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire in 1401 and 1408,® and 
Justice of the Peace in Suffolk,^ — Morant is able to give no infor- 
mation about his family. Perhaps his position in the society of the 
county was due in part to the fact that he married an heiress, 
Alice, daughter of Sir Thomas Mandeville.^" 

John Legge, who is on the lists as an esquire, but in the Patent 
Rolls is referred to chiefly as a serjeant at arms, was, according to 
H. T. Riley, son of Thomas Legge, mayor of London in 1347 and 
1354.11 

1 Ancient Deeds A 9086. 2 Vol. 10, p. 426 flF. » Ancient Deeds A 1625. * idem, A 
1472. = idem, A 7833. "^ Vol. 1, p. 319. 'Vol. 2, p. 135, 6. » Morant' s Essex, vol. 2, 
p. 123. »Cf. Cal. Pat. Roll. 1381-5, p. 254. i" Morant vol. 2, p. 75. "Memorials, p. 450. 



10 Chaucer's official life 

Robert Louth was evidently derived from a Hertfordshire fam- 
ily. A Robert de Louth was custodian of the castle of Hertford and 
supervisor of the city of Hertford in 32 Edward III ^ and between 
1381 and 1385 was Justice of the Peace for Hertford.- Prol)ably 
Robert de Louth was a younger son, for John, son and heir of Sir 
Roger de Louthe (in 44 Edward III) deeded land in Hertfordshire 
to Robert de Louthe, esquire, his uncle.^ 

John de Romesey comes of an eminent Southampton family of 
the town of Romsey * which can be traced back as far as 1228, when 
Walter of Romsey was sheriff of Hampshire. His pedigree is given 
as follows by Hoare : ^ 

Walter de Romesey 34 Edward I. 

I 
Walter de Romesey 23 Edward III = Joan 

I 
John de Romesey = Margaret d. and 

(Co. Somerset) heir of ? 

Hugh Strelley was a member of the family of Strelley (Straule) 
of Nottingham and Derby. From the fact that his name does not 
occur in the pedigree given in Thoroton's History of Notting- 
hamshire ** and that he held lands of Nicholas de Strelley by the 
fourth part of a knight's fee," it is clear that he belonged to a sub- 
ordinate branch of the family. Further, he was even a younger son 
of this secondary stock, for, as brother and heir of Philip de Strel- 
ley, son and heir of William de Strelley, he inherited lands in 47 
Edward III.« 

Gilbert Talbot was second son of Sir John Talbot of Richard's 
Castle in Herefordshire.^ 

Hugh Wake may be tlie Hugh Wake who married Joan de 
Wolverton and whom Lipscom])e connects with the lordly family 
of Wake of Buckinghamshire. ^° 

These eighteen or nineteen esquires, then, are tlie only ones in 
the long lists whose family connections I have been able to trace. 
Certain others — as for example the various Cheynes — Hugh, Roger, 

> Cal. Rot. Pat. Turr. Lon., p. 169 b. = Cal. Pat. Roll inde.x. » Ancient Deeds, D 
4213. * Woodward, Wilks, Lockhart, History of Nottinghamshire, vol. 1. p. 352. ° His- 
tory of Wilts, vol. 3, Hundred of Cawdon, p. 13. « VoI. 2. p. 220. " Cal. Pat. Roll, 1392, 
p. 56. 8C. R. 211, Mem. 38. » Of. Nicolas: Scrope-Grosvenor Roll, vol. 2, p. 397. 
'" Lipscombe's Biickinghamshire, vol. 4, p. 126. He is quite wrong as to the date of this 
Hugh's death. Cf. Close Rolls, 1361, pp. 228-9 which show that Hugh was living at this 
date. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD H 

Thomas, John and William— Robert la Souche, Simon de Burgh 
and Geoffrey Stucle— may have been derived from noble families of 
their name. In that ease, however, they were certainly not in the 
direct line of descent, for their names do not appear in the pedigree 
of those families. On the other hand many of the names would seem 
to indicate that their possessors came from obscure families. In 
several cases, for example, esquires practically gave up their own 
names and were called by occupational names. So the Richard des 
Armes of the records was probably "Richard de Careswell vadlet 
del armes" ^ who had charge of the king's personal armour. Reyn- 
old Barbour is once called Reynold le Barber.- Roger Ferrour was 
one of the king's shoe-smiths,^ and his personal name was Roger 
Bonyngton.-^ Robert Larderer is never mentioned in the records, 
but Robert Maghfeld, called king's larderer, is mentioned.^ No 
Richard Waffrer occurs on the records (although the name occurs 
three times in the household lists), but Richard Markham, wafferer, 
occurs frequently.^ Richard Leche, called king's surgeon,^ was 
probably identical with Richard Irlonde, king's surgeon.^ ' John 
Leche also was king's surgeon, but I have found mention of him 
under no other name.^ Robert Vynour was vine-keeper or gardener 
to Edward III." Certain of the other names, though apparently 
family names, seem to be of occupational or place origin, e. g. 
Thomas Spigurnel, Simon de Bukenham, John de Beverle,' Hen- 
ricus Almannia, Cornelius de Ybernia, William de York, etc' Fin- 
ally some names by their very character could scarcely be the 
names of noble families, e. g. Walter Whithors, Walter Chippen- 
ham, John Cat, etc. 

From what I have been able to find out about the families 'oi 
some of these men, from the character of the names, and from the 
fact that the families of the great bulk of the esquires cannot be 
traced, it is clear that the esquires of the king's household were 
chiefly recruited either from the younger sons of knightly families 
or from quite undistinguished stock. In three cases— those of John 
Legge, Thomas Hauteyn and Thomas Frowyk— it seems probable 
that they came— as Chaucer did— from merchants' families in 
London. 

1 Exchequer K. R. Accts. 392, 15. ^ Issues P. 220 (32 Edw. Ill) 31373 Cal Pat 
Roll, p. 158. * Rich. II, Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 597. ^ Issues P. 222, mem. 21 "Devon's Is- 
sues 1370, p. 22, p. 34. Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 179. ^ 37 Edw. III. Issues P 230 
mem. unnumbered, s Devon's Issues 1370, pp. 103, 333. » Cal. Pat. Roll 1378 r' 178' 
1383, p. 283. "Devon's Issues 1370, p. 115. ' 



12 Chaucer's official life 

Appointment 

We can scarcely expect any outright statement of the reasons in 
general or in particular for the appointment of esquires. Neverthe- 
less I find two circumstances which may indicate the conditions of 
appointment; first, some previous connection of their fathers with 
the king's court, and second, some previous connection on their own 
part with the household of one of the king's children. Of those whose 
fathers or relatives had been in the court, may be mentioned John 
Beauchamp,^ Patrick Byker,- Nicholas Careu,^ Robert Corby,* Col- 
lard Dabrichecourt,"' Robert de Ferrers,*' and William Burele' (who 
was son of the Sir John de Burley with whom Chaucer was asso- 
ciated on one mission). Of course John Legge's father — as mayor 
of London — must have been known at court, and one of Thomas 
Hauteyn's progenitors had been receiver of king's customs at 
London.^ 

Even more interesting is the case of those esquires who before 
entering the king's service had been in the household of one of his 
children — i. e. Edward the Black Prince, Lionel, duke of Clarence 
(or his wife), John of Gaunt, Isabella, wife of Ingelram de Coucy, 
and Edmund, Count of Cambridge. Roger Archer, Griffith de la 
Chambre, Henry de Almaigne and Richard Torperle seem to have 
been in the service of Isabella, the king's daughter, for, in the 
grants of annuities which they received, special mention is made of 
their service to her.® Possibly they were always in her service. 
Stephen Romylowe is expressly called esquire of Edward prince of 
Wales (the Black Prince) , and he held an annuity from that prince.^" 
Richard Wirle signed an indenture to serve John of Gaunt as an 
esquire in 46 Edward III, after the date at which he is mentioned 
in the household books.^^ Since he seems never to have received an 
annuity from the king, or a grant — except in one instance for his 
wages in the wars — it seems likely that he was never actually in 
the king's service, but rather in that of John of Gaunt. Robert 
Ursewyk was connected in some way with John of Gaunt and also 
with Edmund, Count of Cambridge, son of Edward III.^' Roger 
Mareschall, John Joce and Robert Bardolf held annuities of twenty 

iCf. p. 6, supra. = p. 6. 3 p. 6. * p. 7. ^^ p. 7. » p. 8. ' Cal. Pat. Roll, 1378, 
p. 283. 8 Of. p. 9, supra. "Issues P. 241, mem. 11. P. 239, mem. 15. P. 301, mem. 
10. Pat. Roll 272, mem. 22, 285 mem. 25. " Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 197, 1385, p. 26. 
"Duchy of Lancaster Registers No. 13. f. 125 dorso. ^^ j^gm f 94 pj^j;. Roll, 274, 
mem. 29. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 13 

pounds each per annum from Lionel Duke of Clarence ^ and so were 
probably at one time in his service. Finally the most interesting 
ease of all is that of Geoffrey Stucle, whose career and employments 
curiously parallel Chaucer's and who in 29 Edward III was valet 
to Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster. - 

Classification 

The two lists in the household books classify the members of 
the household in different ways — one list according to function and 
the other, apparently, according to length of service. The first is 
the system according to which the schedule of names conjecturally 
dated December 1368 ^ was made, and the latter is the system gov- 
erning the list of September 1, 1369 {number 58 Chaucer Records, 
page 172.) A glance at the second of these and comparison with 
the first will show how it was made up. It classifies the esquires in 
two groups — "esquiers de greindre estat" and "esquiers de mein- 
dre degree." Looking at the names of the "esquiers de greindre 
estat" we notice that the first thirteen are names which appear in the 
group of "esquiers" of 1368, that the next ten are identical — even in 
the order of occurrence — with the list of "seriantz des amies" of 
1368, that the following seven are the first seven in the list of 
"sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures a chaperon" of 1368 (in 
the same order), that then Andrew Tyndale who in 1368 was an 
"esquier ma dame" appears, and is followed by the rest of the 
''sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures," etc., (in the same order 
as in 1368) that the next six were in 1368 "esquiers ma dame," and 
that finally occur ten names not found in the lists of 1368. From 
this comparison it is clear that the list of 1369 was made up from a 
series of lists of different departments in the king's household. 

The list of "esquiers de meindre degree" of 1369 was doubtless 
made in the same way, although the evidence is not so conclusive. 
The first twenty-two names correspond to names in the list of es- 
quiers of 1368 ; the next eleven occur in the list of ' ' esquiers sur- 
venantz" of 1368; the following five appear among the "esquiers 
ma dame" of 1368; the next thirteen do not occur in the lists of 
1368; but the following eight correspond even in order to the list 
of "esquiers fauconers" of 1368. 

1 Cal. Pat. Roll 1383, p. 326. 2 issues, P. 212, mem. 22, 27. s Printed as number 53 
of the Chaucer Records (page 162). 



14 Chaucer's official life 

It is therefore clear that we have here a cross division. That the 
list of 1368 gives a division according to function is clear from the 
titles of all groups except one. The esquires classified as "faucon- 
ers," " survenantz, " "ma dame," etc., performed the functions 
suggested by those titles — a fact which can be demonstrated by 
many references to the function of these men in other documents. 
In the case of the one exception, tlie ' ' sergeantz des offices parvantz 
furrures a chaperon," it is clear that they performed duties similar 
to those of the "esquiers survenantz." For example, Richard des 
Amies was valet of the king's arms; ^ William Blacomore was one 
of the king's buyers, subordinate to the purveyor of fresh and salt 
fish,- John de Conyngsby was likewise a buyer of victuals for the 
household,^ John Goderik and John Gosedene were cooks in the 
household ; * Richard Leche was king 's surgeon,^ Thomas de Stanes 
was sub-purveyor of the poultry;" William Strete was the king's 
butler; ^ Edmond de Tettesworth was the king's baker,® etc. Hence 
it is clear that all these performed duties wliich in the main were of 
a menial character. 

On the other hand, the division into two groups in the list of 
1369 seems to indicate not the function of the esquires, but their 
rank in the household. Their rank, in turn, appears to be deter- 
mined by various considerations — function (all the falconers of 
1368 are enrolled among the esquires of less degree in 1369), length 
of service, and to some extent considerations which are not mani- 
fest. That length of service played some part in the division seems 
clear from a study and comparison of the careers of the various 
men. Since we are interested in knowing particularly the signifi- 
cance of the classification of Chaucer who appeared in 1368 as an 
esquier, I shall confine myself to a consideration of the "esquiers" 
of that year. The names of the esquires of greater degree ^vith 
the date at which they are first mentioned in connection with the 
household (in documents outside the household books) follow: 

Johan Herlyng. 58 Edward III (1344)« 

Wauter Whithors. 1343 ^« 

Johan de Beverle. 36 Edward III (1362)^^ 

1 Exchequer, K. R. Accts. 392, 12, f. 36 dorso. idem. No. 15. = C. R. 1359 p. 
545. "Pat. Roll 276, mem. 4. * Pat. Roll 1378, p. 212, Devon's Issues. 1370, p. 311. 
"idem. P. 230 mem. not numbered. « C. R. 1359, p. 545. 'Issues. P. 228, mem. 38. 
8 Pat. Roll, 1378, p. 224. » Abb. Rot. Orig., vol. 2, p. 165. "> C. R., p. 203. "Pat. 
Roll 2C5, mem. 17. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 15 

Johan Romeseye. 35 Edward III (1361)i 
Wauter Walsh. 36 Edward III. (1362) ^ 
Roger Clebury. 1349 ^ 
Helmyng Leget. 33 Edward III. ( 1359 ) * 
Rauf de Knyveton. 35 Edward III. (1361)^ 
Richard Torperle. 38 Edward III. (1364)« 
Johan Northrugg. 37 Edward III. (1363)^ 
Hanyn Narrett. 38 Edward III. (1364)8 
Symond de Bokenham. 37 Edward III. (1363)^ 
Johan Legg. 36 Edward III. (1362) ^^ 
The ' ' esquiers de meindre degree ' ' follow : 
Hugh Wake. 1353 " 

Piers de Cornewaill. 37 Edward III. (1363)^2 
Robert Ferrers. 1370 ^^ 
Robert Corby. 43 Edward III. (1369)^* 
Collard Daubricheeourt. 44 Edward III. (1370)^^ 
Thomas Hauteyn. 41 Edward III. (1367)i« 
Hugh Cheyne. 32 Edward III. (1358) ^^ 
Thomas Foxle.^® 
Geffrey Chaucer. 

Geffrey Styuecle. 31 Edward III. (1356)i« 
Symon de Burgh. 44 Edward III. (1370)2<> 
Johan de Tychemerssh. No mention outside of house- 
hold books, where he appears for first time in 1368. 
Robert la Zouche. 29 Edward III. (1355)^1 
Esmon Rose. 17 Edward III. (1343)-- 
Laurence Hauberk. 1370 -^ 
Griffith del Chambre. 28 Edward III. (1354)=* 
Johan de Thorpe. 30 Edward III. (1356)^5 

iPat. Roll 264, mem. 24. ^ idem 266, mem. 47. ' i^em, p. 227. * Issues, P. 223, 
mem. 32. = Pat. Roll 264, mem. 18. » idem 272, mem. 22. ^ issues, P. 232, mem. 5. 
8 Issues, P. 237, mem. 17. » Pat. Roll 267. mem. 7. ""idem 266, mem. 3. "idem, p. 
380. " idem 268, mem. 18. ^ Rymer III, 902. " C. R. mem. 23, dorse. The last two 
are difficult to distinguish from their fathers of the same name who had been in the 
King's court before their time. i° Pat. Roll 281, mem. 18. "idem 1399, p. 65. Issues, 
P. 250, mem. 2. " Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 248. is i cannot identify him surely; a 
Thomas de Foxle was in the King's court in 4 Edw. Ill ffi (Abb. Rot. Grig. II, p. 39) ; he 
was growing old in 1352 (Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 270) and died 30 Edw. Ill (Cal. Inq. P. M. 
II 220, leaving his property to a son and heir John). i° Issues, P. 217, mem. 114. In 
29 Edw. Ill in service of Countess of Ulster. 2" Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 189. =1 Issues, 
P. 213, mem. 24. ^^ Cal. Pat. Roll 1348, p. 39. ^a iggues 1370, Devon, pp. 136, 444. 
«* Issues, P. 294, mem. 18. ^b idem, P. 214, mem. 8. 



16 CHAUCER ^S OFFICIAL LIFE 

Thomas Hertfordyngbury. 41 Edward III. (1367)^ 
Hugh Straiile. No certain mention as valet or esquire. 
Hugh Lyngeyn. 37 Edward III. (1363)2 
Nicholas Prage. 33 Edward III. (1359)^ 
Richard "Wirle. No record as valet or esquire of the king. 
A comparison of the two sections shows that the first contains 
the names of two men whose service goes back as far as 1343, 1344, 
and that it contains the name of no one who was not by 1364 asso- 
ciated with the court. The second section, on the other hand, con- 
tains but one name of a date earlier than 1353 and several which 
do not occur in the records before the time of this document, or 
in fact until a year or two later. The fact however that in a num- 
ber of cases the second section contains names of men who entered 
the household years before others whose names occur in the first 
section makes it seem probable that special circumstances might in- 
fluence the classification of a given esquire. 

Linked with this problem of classification is one of nomen- 
clature — the use of the terms "vallettus" and "esquier" (or, the 
Latin equivalents of the latter, "armiger" and "scutifer"). Chau- 
cer scholars have generally assumed that the term "esquier" repre- 
sents a rank higher than "vallettus." But they give no evidence 
in support of this distinction, and we are interested in knowing 
whether it is correct or not. A first glance at the list of 1369, to be 
sure, and the observation that cooks and falconers, a shoe-smith * 
and a larderer ^ are called "esquiers" there, might lead one to 
think that the word can have but a vague force and no real differ- 
ence in meaning from "vallettus." But an examination of other 
documents shows that the use of the term "esquier" in the house- 
hold lists does not represent the customary usage of the time. It is 
to be noted for example that many of the "esquiers" of 1369 (prac- 
tically all of the "esquiers des offices"^ etc., and the "esquiers 
survenantz" of 1368) are not called esquires in the list of 1368, the 
Patent Rolls, Close Rolls, Issue Rolls or Fine Rolls. William de 
Risceby and Thomas Spigurnell are the only clear exceptions to 
this rule. Of the "esquiers survenantz" I have noted eighteen 
references with mention of title, in seventeen of which the man 

iPat. Roll 275, mem. 13. = idem 267, mem. 37. 'Exchequer K. R. Accts., Bundle 
392, No. 15. *Pat. Roll 1378, p. 158. ^ iggues (Devon) 1370, p. 45. » For indication 
of their function see p. 14. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 17 

named is called ''vallettus" or "serviens." Of the "serjeantz des 
offices," Richard des Armes is called "vallettus" or "serviens" in 
twelve different entries, never "esquier."^ I have noted thirty- 
five other references to men in the same classification with the title 
' ' vallettus. " ^ It is clear then that although the usage is not 
strict these men were really of the rank of ' ' vallettus, ' ' and that this 
rank was lower than that of "esquier." Possibly the household 
books used the term "esquier" in this loose way out of courtesy, 
but the other documents — which were strictly official — for the most 
part used it more exactly in accordance with a man's actual rank. 
From a study of the records of the "esquiers" of 1368 (the 
group to which in that year Chaucer belonged) we learn further 
conditions under which the terms "vallettus" and "armiger" or 
"scutifer" are used. In nearly all cases these esquires in the 
early years of their career, are called "vallettus," after some years 
of service they are occasionally called "armiger," and finally after 
the passage of more years are always called "armiger" or "scuti- 
fer." Demonstration of this fact would take pages of mere refer- 
ences; but it can be indicated in a typical case, that of Geoffrey 
Stucle, chosen because of the fact that his classification is through- 
out the same as Chaucer's. In 31, 33, and 35 Edward III he is 
called "vallettus," in 36 Edward III, he appears once as "scuti- 
fer," and twice as "vallettus"; in 37 Edward III he is once named 
"vallettus"; in 38 Edward III he is called once "scutifer" and 
another time "vallettus"; in 41 Edward III he is mentioned twice 
as "vallettus"; in 42 and 43 Edward III he is "armiger"; in 47 Ed- 
ward III he is once "vallettus" and once "armiger" ; in 49 Edward 
III he is called "armiger" twice; in 50 Edward III, and 1 and 2 
Richard II he is called "armiger."^ From this and the other 
cases in the list of esquires, it is clear that the term "esquier" (the 
equivalent of scutifer and armiger) indicates a rank above that of 
"vallettus." The members of Chaucer's group, in nearly every 
ease, were at first entitled "valletti" and then in course of time 
became "esquiers." 

1 Pat. Roll 265, mem. 21, 279, mem. 5, 273, mem. 15, 355, mem. 8, Issues, P. 207, 
mem. 4, P. 217, mem. 29, etc. ^ Pat. Roll 276, mem. 4, Issues, P. 237, Pat. Roll 265, mem. 
14, 266, mem. 9, idem, mem. 47, etc. ^ Pat. Roll 269, mem. 43, 273 mem. 35, 263 mem. 
1, 275 mem. 24, 293 mem. 19, 267 mem. 21, Issues P. 223, mem. 17, 222 mem. 20, A 169 
mem. 130, P. 229, mem. 22, mem. 25 (twice) P. 217, mem. 14, 18, P. 235, mem. 1, 248 
mem. not numbered, 249 mem. 4, 264 mem. not numbered, 262 mem. 9, 271 mem. 17, 273 
mem. 20, 295 mem. 11. 



18 Chaucer's official life 

Whatever may be the conclusion with regard to the meaning of 
those titles, however, it is clear, from the facts cited above, that the 
list of "esquiers" of 1368 and not that of the "esquiers de meindre 
degree" of 1369, gives the names of the men who were actually 
in the same class as Chaucer. Consequently in the consideration of 
the esquires which follows greater attention will be paid to the 
"esquiers" of 1368 than to the other classes. 

Services 

With regard to the services which the Household Books prescribe 
for the esquires, I shall say nothing. In the public records, how- 
ever, I have found special services to which the individual esquires 
were assigned. In the first place certain of these men — even those 
who appear in the list of 1368 as "esquiers," and in that of 1369 
as ' ' esquiers de greindre estat, " or " esquiers de meindre degree ' ' — 
performed special functions of a character which makes it seem un- 
likely that they ever did the service which the Household Books 
required of an esquire of the king's household. In the list of 1368, 
for example, Esmon Rose was custodian of the great horses of the 
king,^ Hugh Lyngeyn was a buyer of the household,- Nicholas Prage 
was first king's minstrel, and later Serjeant at arms,^ Simond de 
Bokenham was chief serjeant of the larder,* and John Legge was 
Serjeant at arms.^ 

Secondly, certain of the esquires held special offices in the king's 
chamber. John Herlyng and Walter Walsh were ushers of the 
king's chamber.^ John de Beauchamp was keeper of the king's 
jewels or receiver of the king's chamber for some years up to 11 
Richard 11;^ then for a short time he was Seneschall (steward) 
of the king's household.^ Thomas Cheyne was in 43 Edward III 
keeper of the keys of the cofi'ers of the king's jewels.® John de 
Salesbury was at different times called usher of the king's chamber 
and keeper of the king's jewels.^" Helmyng Leget was from 1362 
for many years receiver of the king's chamber, his business being 
to keep the king's money, receive it from various people and pay it 
out." 

» Issues, P. 216, mem. 18. ^ p^t. Roll 1384, p. 435. 'Issues, P. 228, mem. 24, 
36 Edw. Ill, P. 273, mem. 11, 50 Edw. III. * Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 165. " Rymer III, 
2, 891. 8Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 133, idem p. 150. ^ Cai. Pat. Roll 1384, p. 488. « Is- 
sues, P. 316, mem. 2. "Pat. Roll 279, mem. 33. w Cal. Pat. Roll 1385, p. 15, Cal. Pat. 
Roll 1381-5 passim. " Rymer, vol. 3, p. 911. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 19 

Thirdly, esquires were frequently being sent about England on 
the king's business. For example in 1385 Simon de Bukenham 
was appointed buyer of horses for the king's expedition into Scot- 
land ; ^ in 1370 Laurence Hauberk was sent to Berwick-upon-Tweed 
and from there by sea-coast to retain shipping for the passage of 
Robert Knolles to Normandy ; ^ similarly at other times Helmyng 
Leget and John Romesey, John de Salesbury and Thomas Spigur- 
nell were detailed to take ships for royal expeditions. ^ Again, Wal- 
ter Whithors in 1370 was sent to York to borrow money from divers 
abbots, priors and others for the king's use,* in 1370 John de Beau- 
champ was sent to the abbot of Gloucester to borrow money for the 
king's use,^ and in 7 Richard II Walter Chippenham was assigned 
to raise money for the king's use out of the lands of the late Ed- 
mund Mortimer, Count of March.^ In 5 Richard II Simon de Burgh 
was appointed to inquire into the possessions held by the rebels 
who had lately risen against the king in Cambridge.'' In 47 Edward 
III, Nicholas Dabridgecourt was appointed to convey the children 
of Charles of Bloys from the custody of Roger Beauchamp to that 
of Robert de Morton.® Of less importance but equal frequency 
are the employments of esquires to convey money from the king's 
treasury or from some customs house to the king's wardrobe; John 
de Beauchamp de Holt le ffitz, Hugh Cheyne, Rauf de Knyveton, 
Walter Chippenham and Robert la Zouche were at various times so 
employed.^ 

Of course during the King's wars many of the esquires 
served in the army abroad. In the Issues of the Exchequer for 
1370, for example, many entries of this type appear — John de 
Beverle — £107 15 s. 5 d. due in the wardrobe for the expenses of 
himself, his men at arms and archers in the war. Devon p. 483. 
Hugh Cheyne, idem, p. 449. Robert de Corby, idem, p. 461. Col- 
lard Dabridgecourt, p. 461. Helming Leget, idem p. 447. John 
Legge, idem p. 449. Thomas Spigurnell, p. 490, etc. 

Most interesting with relation to Chaucer, however, is the em- 
ployment of esquires on missions abroad. Apparently certain in- 
dividuals were assigned especially to this kind of business and 

iCal. Pat. Roll, p. 579. 2 Devon's Issues, p. 136. s igg^gg^ p 27O, mem. not num- 
bered, P. 262, mem. 13, P. 298, mem. 23. Rymer, vol. 3, p. 90. * Devon's Issues, p. 
111. 6 idem, p. 153. « Issues, P. 308, mem. 6. Similarly Geoffrey Stucle, P. 298, mem. 
23. 7 idem, P. 305, mem. 3. « j^em, P. 262, mem. 14. » Issues, P. 229, mem. 24, P. 
217, mem. 22, Devon, p. 156, P. 281, mem. 2, P. 213, mem. 24, P. 229, mem. 19. 



20 Chaucer's official life 

many of these were kept almost constantly engaged in it. For ex- 
ample, George Felbrig, in 51 Edward III, was sent on the King's 
secret business to John Duke of Brittany in Flanders.^ In 2 Rich- 
ard II he was sent with John Burle and others on King's secret 
business to Milan.- In 4 Richard II he was sent to the King of the 
Romans and of Bohemia on secret business touching the King's 
marriage.^ In 5 Richard II he was sent again to Flanders.* In 
11 Richard II (being then Knight of the King's chamber) he was 
sent to Middelburgh to receive the homage of the Duke of Gueldres,^ 
and again in 14 Richard II he was sent on the King's business to 
the King of the Romans and of Bohemia.^ That the service was 
not a special honour but merely a business function of the esquire 
is clear from the fact that Felbrig was on one occasion called, 
"King's messenger beyond seas." ^ 

Similarly Geoffrey Stucle (whose career, I have already pointed 
out, closely parallels Chaucer's) made many voyages abroad in 
the King's business between 33 Edward III and 2 Richard II. 
In 33 Edward III, and again in 35 Edward III, he was sent to 
Normandy on the King's business.^ On many of his missions he 
merely carried letters to John of Gaunt, (in Devon's Issues 1370, 
for example, five such missions in a single year are mentioned), or 
to various nobles directing them to arm themselves for an expedition 
under John of Gaunt. ^ Likewise Stephen Romylowe was employed 
on many missions from 25 Edward III on.^" In 30 Edward III he 
was sent "in nuncio domini Regis" to Flanders, ^^ in 31 Edward III 
on another mission,^- in 32 Edward III with John de Beauchamp, 
banneret, to Holland, Flanders, Zealand, etc.^^ These are the 
most important examples of such employment, but many other 
esquires — notably John Padbury, who in 1368 was an "esquier 
survenant" ^* — made occasional voyages. 

Rewards 

The regular pay of an esquire of the household was seven pence 
halfpenny a day.^^ The pay of a King's sergeant at arms was 

1 Issues, P. 274, mem. 11. 2 idem, P. 298, mem. 20. = idem, P. 303, mem. 2. * idem, 
P. 305, mem. 13. ^ jdem, P. 316, mem. 2. ^ jjem, P. 323, mem. 5. '' Cal. Pat. Roll 1384, 
p. 367. 8 Issues, P. 223, mem. 17, A 169, mem. 30, mem. 38. » idem, P. 262, mem. 9. 
10 idem 25 Edw. Ill, P. mem. 21, 37. "idem, P. 214, mem. not numbered. ^ idem P. 
217, mem. 18. "idem P. 220, mem. 15. "Issues, P. 294 (?) mem. 20, P. 211, mem. 7, 
P. 214, mem. 23, P. 218, mem. 2, etc. " Cal. Pat. Roll 1380, p. 539, 1378, p. 288. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 21 

twelve pence a day — a sum usually granted for life.^ It is to be 
observed, however, that the sergeants-at-arms received very few 
other grants. The esquires, on the other hand, received extremely 
valuable grants in great numbers. In particular they were given 
annuities, grants of land, grants of office, custody of lands belong- 
ing to heirs under age, usually with marriage of the heir, and 
corrodies at monasteries. 

Taking up the first of these I shall confine myself to the "es- 
quiers" of 1368, since — from Chaucer's position in the lists in that 
year and in 1369 — they would seem to be the men with whom 
Chaucer is to be associated. In stating the amounts of the annui- 
ties I shall give the total sum which each man received. The names 
follow in the order of the lists of 1368. 

Johan de Herlyng, i 40, + i 20 -f- £ 13, 10 s. 1 d. + 
£ 12, lOs.2 

Wauter "Whithors, £ 40.^ 

Thomas Cheyne, £ 20.* 

Johan de Beverle, £ 40, 8s. 9d.^ 

Johan de Romesey, £ 20.® 

Wauter Walssh, £ 20.^ 

Hugh Wake, £ 40.« 

Roger Clebury, £ 10.^ 

Piers de Cornewaill, £ 40.^° 

Robert de Ferers, no annuity found. 

Elmyn Leget, 20m. ^^ 

Robert de Corby, £ 10}^ 

Collard Dabrichecourt, £ 10.^^ 

Thomas Hauteyn, £ 10.^* 

Hugh Cheyne, lOm.^^ 

Thomas Foxle — no information whatever.* 

Geffrey Chaucer. 

Geffrey Stucle, £ 2Q}^ 

Simond de Burgh, i 10 -f- lOm.^^ 

* Richard Imworth, Thomas Stafford, Thomas Staples, Wauter de Leycester, etc., had 
grants of 12d. daily for life. 2 Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 133. 3 idem 1386, p. 146. * Issues 
A, 169, mem. 16. ^ Devon's Issues 1370, p. 35. « idem, p. 29. ' Issues, P. 258, mem. 
14. 8 Devon's Issues 1370, p. 372. » P. 216, mem. 38. "P. 241, mem. 11. "Pat. Roll 
260, mem. 3. ^^ idem 291, mem. 1. ^^ idem 281, mem. 18. >* Issues, P. 250, mem. 2. 
15 Pat. Roll 255, mem. 26. "Devon's Issues 1370, p. 301. " Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, pp. 
189, 192. 

* Outside of these lists I have been able to find no information about these men. 



22 Chaucer's official life 

Johan Tichemerssh — no information whatever.* 

Robert la Souche, £ 10/ 

Esmon Rose (and wife, Agnes Archer) 40m.2 

Laurence Hauberk — no certain information as esquire. 

Griffith de la Chambre, £ 20.^ 

Johan de Thorp, lOm.* 

Raulyn Erchedeakne — no information whatever.* 
- Rauf de Knyveton, lOm.^' 

Thomas Hertfordyngbury, £ 10.*^ 

Hugh Strelley, 40m." 

Hugh Lyugeyn, £ 20.^ 

Nicholas Prage, lOm.^ 

Richard Torperle, 12 d. daily.^° 

Richard Wirle, no annuity. 

Johan Northrugge, lOm.^^ 

Hanyn Narrett, £ 10.^- 

Simond de Bokenham, £ 10}^ 

Johan Legge, 12 d. daily." 
In only two cases in which we find other information about an 
esquire do we find no annuity. In a few cases, I have been able to 
find out nothing at all about the men. In all others, annuities 
ranging from ten marks up to £ 86 are found. Apparently then the 
receipt of an annuity was absolutely a normal feature of the career 
of an esquire. 

None of the other forms of grants was given so systematically 
and uniformly as that of annuities, but all of the others were very 
common. The nature and extent of the grants of land, and of 
guardianships, will appear in the accounts of the careers of in- 
dividual esquires. They are so irregular in their character, are 
changed so frequently and are given on such varying conditions, 
that an accurate list could scarcely be made. 

The matter of grants of offices, particularly in the customs, is, 
however, more easy to handle. At the time when Chaucer was given 
his controllership, offices in the customs seem to have been used 

1 Issues, P. 228, mem. 3. = Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 187. = issues P. 258, mem. 12. 
*Cal. Pat. 1378, p. 157. s Devon's Issues, 1370, p. 156. ^ QaX. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 217. 
^ Pat. Roll 295, mem. 4. ^V&t. Roll 1399, p. 176. "Devon's Issues 1370, p. 216. 
"Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 150. "Issues, P. 237, mem. 17. i^ idejj, p 237, mem. 17. 
"Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 165. "idem, p. 186. 

* See note, preceding page. 



THE ESQUIRES OP THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 23 

regularly as sinecures for the esquires. In 1353 Griffith de la 
Chambre was granted the office of gauging of wine in the towns of 
Lenn and Great Yarmouth.^ At the same time Roger Clebury re- 
ceived a similar grant.- In 1343 William de Clopton had a grant 
for life of the collectorship of the port of London with wages of 
i 20. Apparently he did not actually exercise the office because 
certain merchants to whom the king had farmed the customs of the 
realm were directed to pay him his wages.^ In 1347 he and John 
Herlyng — another esquire — were collectors of the petty customs in 
London.* In 1352 and again in 1355 his deputy is specifically men- 
tioned.s In 1346 John de Herlyng was granted the office of con- 
troller of customs in Boston (Pat. Roll p. 204). In 1348 he was 
granted the office of controller of wools, hides and wool-fells, wines 
and all other merchandise at Newcastle-upon-Tyne with this added 
provision, "furthermore because he stays continually in the King's 
company by his order, he may substitute for himself a deputy in 
the said office," etc.^ In 1352 he was controller of the customs in 
the port of Boston and likewise in that of Lenne — with provision in 
the same terms as those above for a deputy in the latter office 
— and collector of the petty custom in London — with deputy.^ 
In 1359 he surrendered the office of controller of customs at Bos- 
ton for an annuity of ten marks.* At one time he was also con- 
troller in the port of St. Botolph.^ From the fact that the records 
show Herlyng was constantly in the King's court, it is clear that 
he exercised all these offices by deputy. 

In 35 Edward III Helmyng Leget was granted the office of 
keeper of the smaller piece of the seal for recognizances of debts 
in London,^" with power to execute the office by deputy. He held 
this office until 1389.^^ Edmund Rose held the office of keeper of 
the smaller piece of the seal in Norwich, with deputy.^^ John de 
Thorp was in 1380 appointed controller of customs of wines, wools, 
etc. at Southampton on condition that he execute the office in per- 
son.^^ Walter Whithors held the offices of keeper of the smaller 
piece of the seal in York, in 1348, and tronager of wool in the port 
of Lenne in 1352 with deputy in both offices." 

iCal. Pat. Roll, p. 411. '^ Q,zX. Pat. Roll 1352, p. 411. ^Q. R. 1343, p. 194. * Ry- 
mer, vol. 3, p. 115. ^ Cal. Pat. Roll, 1352, p. 327; C. R. 1355, p. 166. » Cal. Pat. Roll, 
p. 130. ''Cal. Pat. Roll, 1352, pp. 327, 348, 355. s jdem 1378, p. 133. 'Devon's Is- 
sues, 1370, p. 381. wCal. Pat. Roll 1377-8, p. 184. "Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 106. ^^ jdem 
1384, p. 380. " Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 564. " idem, pp. 143, 293. 



24 Chaucer's official life 

In addition to ojffices in the customs, places as parker of a King's 
forest, or keeper of a royal castle were frequently given to the 
esquires. So Hugh Cheyne in 1378 had the custody of Shrewsbury 
Castle with wages of seven pence halfpenny therefor.^ Helmyng 
Leget and Thomas Cheyne at various times held the office of con- 
stable of Windsor Castle.- John de Beverle and Robert Corby 
likewise had the constableship of the castle of Ledes.^ William 
Archebald was forester of the Forest of Braden.* John de Beverle 
was parker of Eltham parks. ^' Walter Whithors in 1349 was stew- 
ard of the forest of Galtres. Many more examples of such grants of 
offices could be given. 

]\Iany of the esquires received corrodies — in most cases probably 
commuted for a certain yearly sum. For example, William Arche- 
bald held a corrody at Glastonbury from 49 Edward III ^ on and 
yet in 1378 is stated in the Patent Rolls to have been retained to 
stay with the King.^ So it could be shown in most cases that 
esquires holding corrodies did not by any means live constantly in 
their monasteries. William Gambon, especially, could scarcely have 
done so since he held corrodies at Salop, (Shrewsbury), Hayles, 
Haylyng, St. Oswald de Nostell, Coventre and Wenlok, at the same 
time.^ Other esquires who held corrodies and the names of their 
monasteries follow: John Beauchamp, Pershoore (Wigorn) ; ^ John 
Salesbury, Stanlee; ^° Simon de Bokenham, Ely; ^^ Helmyng Leget, 
Ramsey ; ^- Roger Clebury, Shrewsbury ; ^^ Peter Cornwaill, 
Redyng ; " John Herlyng, Convent of Church of Christ, Canter- 
bury;^' Hugh Lyngeyn, Dunstaple ; ^'^ Stephen Romylowe, Barde- 
nay.^'^ 

Grants of wine are scarcely so common as the other kinds of 
grants and, so far as I have found, they are not usually given to 
prominent esquires. John Roos had a grant of two tuns of Avine 
yearly; ^^ William Risceby of "one dolium" or two pipes of Gas- 
con wine ; ^^ William Strete and William Archebald each of one tun 
of Gascon wine yearly ; -° John De Beverle and Thomas Cheyne each 
of two dolia of Gascon wine yearly ; -^ and Hugh Lyngeyn of one 
tun of red wine of Gascony yearly.-- 

iCal. Pat. Roll, p. 248. 2 Pat. Roll 279, mem. 33. 'idem 272, mem. 27, Exchequer 
K. R. Accts. 393-7. * Pat. Roll 290, mem. 13. ^ Cal. Pat. Roll 1378-80, p. 143. • C. R. 
213, mem. 17. '' Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 135. s c R. 235, mem. 22, dorso. »C. R. 228, mem. 
4, dorso. "idem 235, mem. 31 dorso. " C. R. 235, mem. 26 dorso. " C. R. 235, 
mem. 10 dorso. " Cal. C. R. 1356, p. 334. " C. R. 215, mem. 7 dorso. i^ C. R. 222, 
mem. 29 dorso. " C. R. 226, mem. 26 dorso. " C. R. 221, mem. 41 dorso. ^^ Cal. Pat. 
Roll 1384, p. 446. "Pat. Roll 289, mem. 25. ^ Gal. Pat. Roll 1378, pp. 135, 277. 
21 Pat. Roll 271, mem. 21. " Cal. Pat. Roll 1399, p. 185. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 25 

One feature of the form of royal grants remains to be men- 
tioned. Writers on Chaucer have frequently called attention to 
the fact that his grants contain a statement that they are made for 
good service done.^ This is merely a regular part of the form of a 
grant. Any enrollments of grants — such as those noted on the pre- 
ceding page — will give examples of the use of this phrase. Further, 
the form of grant practically always includes a characterization of 
the grantee as "dilectus vallettus," "dilectus serviens," "dilectus 
armiger," etc. 

Marriage 

The waves of the esquires came chiefly from two classes — first, 
the "domicellae" of the queen's retinue, and second, the daughters 
and heiresses of country gentlemen. Esquires who married wives 
from the second class frequently owed a great part of their im- 
portance in the county to the estates which their wives brought. 
So, frequently in the county histories occurs an account of some 
esquire whose family and antecedents the writer has been unable 
to trace, but who was prominent in the county — sheriff perhaps or 
Knight of the Shire — as a result of the lands he held in right of 
his wife. An example of this is Helmyng Leget, who was member 
of Parliament for Essex in 7 and 9 Henry IV, and sheriff in 1401 
and 1408. He had married Alice, daughter and coheir of Sir 
Thomas Mandeville and received the estates of Stapleford-Taney, 
Bromfield, Chatham Hall in Great Waltham and Eastwick in 
Hertfordshire.- Similarly John de Salesbury, who had received 
from the King a grant of the custody of the estates of John de 
Hastang defunct, and of the marriage of the latter 's daughter and 
heir Johanna, married the lady himself and held in her right exten- 
sive lands. ^ 

John Beauchamp married Joan, daughter and heir of Robert 
le Fitzwyth.* Simond de Bokenham married Matilda Gerounde, 
who brought him the only land he possessed at his death. ^ Hugh 
Cheyne married Joan, daughter and heir of John de Wodeford.^ 
Robert Corby married Alice, daughter and heir of Sir John Gous- 
all.^ Collard Dabriehecourt married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of 

1 Cf. Hales, Lounsbury ante. ^ Morant's Essex vol. 2, p. 75 ; vol. 1, part 2, p. 179. 
* Pat. Roll 292, mem. 21, idem 289, mem. 30, Dugdale's Warwick, p. 313. * Ancient Deeds, 
A 8171. Bpat. Roll 267, mem. 7, Inq. P. M. vol. 3, p. 173. « Abb. Rot. Orig. II, 264. 
^Hasted's Kent II, 428. 



26 Chaucer's official life 

Sibilla, daughter of Thomas de Saye, and held in her right Strath- 
field-Saye.^ George Felbrig married Margaret, daughter of Eli- 
zabeth dame de Aspall, and received with her certain lands in Nor- 
folk and Suffolk.- Robert Ferrers married Elizabeth Boteler, 
daughter and heir of William Boteler of Wemme.^ John Legge 
married Agnes de Northwode, coheir of the manour of Ertindon in 
Surrey.* Hugh Wake married Joan de Wolverton and received 
lands with her.^ Walter Walssh married Joan Duylle, widow of 
John Fletcher, called "bel," and received with her the house of 
Gravebury, which she and her former husband had held.*' Walter 
Whithors married Mabel, daughter and coheir of Philip Niweham 
(or Newnham.)^ 

Even more interesting — because of their analogy with Chaucer's 
marriage — are the instances of marriage with the queen's damsels. 
In one case, at least, this kind of alliance was considered a meritor- 
ious action on the part of the esquire concerned, for not only did he 
receive an annuity therefor, but ever afterwards M^hen a payment 
was made on the annuity, the circumstances were given in full. 
''To Edmund Rose, valletus, to whom the King has given ten 
pounds per annum to be received at the Exchequer, for good ser- 
vice rendered to the King and because he has married Agnes Archer 
formerly damsel to Queen Philippa. "* Similarly Roger Archer 
(called "esquier ma dame," and, in the grant, valet to Isabella, 
daughter of Edward III) married Alexandra de la Mote damsel 
to Isabella.'' It is curious that in both these cases the maiden name 
of the wife is given in the Issue Rolls for years after the grant of 
the annuities. 

In the other cases only the surname of the husband is given. 
These cases are: Walter Wyght and Margaret Wyght,^° Thomas 
and Katherine Spigurnell," John and Almicia de Beverle,^^ John 
and Stephanetta Olney,^'' Robert and Joan Louth,^* Piers and Alice 
Preston,^^ Hugh and Agatha Lyngeyn^^ and John and Margaret 
Romsey.^'' 

1 Beltz. Mem. of Garter, p. 90 ff, Wood worth, Wilks, Lockhart, Hampshire III, 274. 
2 Abstracts and Indexes — Duchy of Lancaster I, 157. ^ Dugdale I, 269, Cal. Inq. P. M. 
Ill, 333. ••Manning's Surrey I. 85. ^ Baker's Northampton II, 252. « Pat. Roll 290, 
mem. 14. ' Dugdale's Warwickshire, p. 86. * Issues, P. 210, P. 204; mem. 5, etc. » Pat. 
Boll 273, mem. 8. Issues, P. 213, mem. 22. m Issues, P. 221, mem. 11. » L. R., p. 
172, C. R. 1357, p. 351, 404, 438. ^ h. R. p. 172, Cal. Inq. P. M. Ill, 29. " L. R., 
p. 172. Issues, P. 241, mem. 8. " L. R. p. 172, Pat. Roll 264, mem. 39. "Pat. Roll 
1378, p. 125. 18 Issues, p. 272, mem. 13. ^Mdem, P. 200, mem. 19, Hoare's Wilts, 
Hundred of Cawdon, p. 13. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING'S HOUSEHOLD 27 

The Careers op the Individual Esquires 
In the preparation of this study, I have collected all the facts 
I could find about the esquires of 1368.^ Since the essential facts 
about them have been discussed in the preceding pages, however 
I shall present in detail the careers of only three or four typical 
esqutres Of the others, John de Herlyng, for many years usher 
of the King's chamber, received many grants from the King and 
held many offices; Thomas Cheyne,^ keeper of the roy-lj-^^^^' 
fought in the wars in France and received grants of lands and 
wardships; John de Romeseye acted at various times as royal mes- 
Tnger, ank as royal treasurer at Calais; Walter Wals^, another 
usher of the King's chamber, received the custody of the posses- 
sions of an alien abbey, and the grant of a house and land; Hugh 
Wake made journeys on the King's service and received some 
grants; Roger Clebury and Piers de Cornewaill received a few 
grants- Robert de Ferrers had the grant of a manor; Helmyng 
Leget for years receiver of the King's Chamber, had many grants 
of land and custodies; Robert de Corby had the grant of a manor; 
Collard Dabrichecourt had grants of manors and offices ; Thomas 
Hauteyn received one custody and one grant of land m Ely; Hugh 
Cheyne had a few grants; the only Thomas Foxle I find trace of, 
who died in 30 Edward III, received some grants; Simond de 
Burgh is mentioned in many financial transactions of the time, and 
he was for some time treasurer of Calais; of John Tichemerssh, I 
find no mention, and of Robert la Souche very little; Esmon Rose 
was keeper of the King's horses; information about Laurence 
Hauberk is ambiguous since there seem to have been t.^^ or more 
Sen of that name; Griffith de la Chambre and John de Thorpe re- 
ceived minor grants; of Raulyn Erchedeakne I find no mention; 
Thomas Hertfordyngbury, Hugh Strelley, Hugh Lyngen, Nicholas 
Prage and Richard Torperle received various small grants; Ricn- 
!rd de Wirle appears only as an esquire of John of Gaunt; about 
John Northrugge and Hanyn Narrett, I find very little; Simond de 
Bokenham was chief sergeant of the King's larder ; and John Legge, 
who seems to have been really an esquire at arms, met his death m 
the Peasant's Revolt. 

.A statement of the facts will he found deposited in the University of Chicago Li- 
hrarj'. ^ Cf. Froissart XX, 562. 



28 Chaucer's official life 

Walter Whithors 

Walter Whithors is mentioned in the records first in 1343 when 
he received an order granting him his wages for life, and the cus- 
tody of the River Fosse for life.^ In 1346 he was granted two mar- 
riages, in 1347, five marks a year, the tronagership of Lenn, and 
the constableship of Conisborongh Castle.- In 1348 the King granted 
Whithors all the tenements and rents in the city of London which 
were in the King's hands by reason of the forfeiture of a certain 
William de IMordon.^ In the same year he was given the custody 
of the smaller piece of the seal for recognizances of debts in the 
city of York.* In 1349 he received a grant of forfeited houses in 
the county of York,^ and likewise a mill and more lands forfeited 
by William de Mordon.'' Furthermore he was given in the same 
year the right to dispose of some of these latter lands. ^ In 1349 
further he was granted the stewardship of the forest of Galtres, 
and the roots of all trees cut down in that forest.^ In 1352 the 
office of tronage of the wools at Lenne was granted to his former 
deputy, at the request of Walter Whithors who surrendered a 
grant of that office. ° Next year he was given an annuity of twenty 
marks, and also the right to exercise the office of recognizances of 
debts by deputy, "because he stays continually in the King's ser- 
vice, at his side." ^^ In the same year he was granted the custody 
of the forest of Lynton, adjacent to Galtres." 

In 1360 Whithors was granted certain houses in York formerly 
belonging to Richard de Snaweshull,^- and also the custody of the 
lands and tenements formerly belonging to Nicholas de Litton, dur- 
ing the minority of the heir.^^ In 1361 he was given a messuage and 
shop formerly owned by Walter Ragoun in London and worth forty 
shillings yearly.^* From a document of the same year we learn some- 
thing about the marriage of his daughter. By this document 
Stephen Wydeslade, cousin and heir of Thomas Branche, acknowl- 
edged a debt of two hundred pounds to Whithors, which is to be 
paid in the form of an annuity of twelve marks to Mary, daughter 
of Whithors and widow of Thomas Branche. She is to have further 
as dower certain manors in Norfolk and Surrey. Her husband had 

I C. R., p. 203. ^cal. Pat. Roll, pp. 37, 69, 234, 451, 545. » Cal. Pat. Roll, 
p. 48. * idem, p. 143. ^ idem, p. 261. « idem, p. 333. ''idem, p. 440. » jdem, pp. 368, 
483 — apparently with deputy, for in Cal. Pat. Roll 1352, p. 214, a lieutenant is men- 
tioned. idem, pp. 267, 293. " idem, pp. 380, 498. " Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 417. 
"Pat. Roll 256, mem. 5. "idem, mem. 13. "idem 261, mem. 12. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 29 

been a ward of her father's and had died a minor.^ In 1363 Whit- 
hors was pardoned the payment of all moneys which he had drawn 
in advance from the wardrobe.^ Likewise in the same year he had 
a grant of the marriage of the son and heir of John Colvyll, 
Chivaler, defunct.^ In 1363 he received a grant of the custody of 
the Palace of Westminster and the prison of the Fleet,* and of 
the custody of all lands and tenements formerly the property of 
William Bruyn, defunct.^ In 1365 Whithors had a grant of the 
manour of Naburn with pertinences in York, formerly the property 
of a felon.^ 

In 1370 he was granted free warren in Brenchesham, Surrey.'^ 
And in the same year and nearly until his death, he had an annuity 
of forty marks a year as usher or doorkeeper of the King's free 
chapel of Windsor. For this office also he received twelve pence a 
day ' ' because that the same Lord the King charged the same Walter 
to carry a wand in the presence of the said Lord the King, before 
the college" when the King personally should be there, "and that 
the same Walter might be able more easily to support that charge. ' ' ^ 
In that year likewise he was sent to York to borrow money from 
divers abbots, priors and others for the King's use.^ In 1373 he and 
Isabella his wife acquired by a devious series of transfers a mess- 
uage of land with reversion to their son Walter.^° In 1377 Gerard 
Brocas acknowledged a debt of 160. m. to Walter Whithors.^^ In 
1377 he was granted the lands and tenements of Simon Raunville, 
defunct, and the marriage of his heiress to Ralph, son of Walter 
Whithors. In 1383 he was still exercising the office of custodian of 
the smaller piece of the seal for York by deputy.^- Three years 
later the King at his supplication granted his annuity of forty 
marks to another. ^^ In 1387 he was apparently dead, for the King 
granted to another the office of usher of St. George's Chapel, and 
the house which he had occupied.^* 

According to Dugdale, Walter Whithors married Mabel, daugh- 
ter and coheir of Philip Neweham (or Newnham) of Neunham 
Padox in Warwick. Their son and heir was Sir Ralph Whitehorse 
Kt.is 

1 C. R., p. 134. 2 Pat. Roll 262, mem. 15. ^ idem 262, mem. 18. * idem 265, mem. 
15. 5 idem, mem. 17. "idem 270, mem. 34. '^ Cal. Rot. Chart, p. 187. ^ j)evon's Issues, 
p. 101. »idem, p. 111. i" Pat. Roll 287, mem. 4. "0. R. 216, mem. 8 dorso. " Oal. 
Pat. Roll, p. 242. "idem, p. 146. "idem, p. 297. is Warwickshire, p. 86. 



30 Chaucer's official life 



John de Beverle 



John de Beverle is particularly interesting to us because in 
1376 he was joined with Chaucer as surety for William de Beau- 
champ when the latter received the custody of the castle and county 
of Pembroke.^ The first mention of him in the public records occurs 
in 36 Edward III when he was granted the custody of all the lands 
and tenements of James de Pabenham, Knight, defunct, during the 
minority of the heir,- and when he and Amicia de Bockeshill his wife 
were granted twenty pounds j^early by the king.^ In the next year 
he was granted the office of constable of the castle of Limerick and 
certain water rights at the same place.^ In 38 Edward III John de 
Beverle, who was holding the manor of Pencrich, Staffordshire, 
from the king in capite, having acquired it from John, son and 
heir of Hugo Blount, was pardoned the transgression committed in 
entering upon it. In the same year he was granted the right to 
hold a fair at Pencrych."^ In 39 Edward III, he received a grant 
of two tenement'? in the parish of St. Michael atte Corne, London,^ 
at the customary rent ; he established a chantry ' ; and received a 
grant of the constableship of the castle of Leeds for life, with wages 
100s. tlierefore.^ In 39-40 Edward III, he was granted the right of 
free warren in Mendlesden,^ Hertfordshire. In 39 Edv«'ard III, he 
was granted the manor of Mendlesden ^° and two dolia of Gas- 
con wine yearly.^^ In. 40 Edward III, the king granted his 
mother, Matilda, a number of tenements and shops in London.^- He 
himself was in that year granted the manor of Bukenhull for life, 
with reversion to his heirs," and the custody of the manor of Melton 
in Kent during the minority of the heir.^* • He seems also in that 
year to have sold to the Count of Arundell and others his manor of 
Pen cry eh. ^^ 

In 41 Edward III John de Beverle was granted the manor of 
Bofford in Oxford.^*' In the next year he was granted the right 
to hunt in the parks and forests of the king, with this prologue : 
"Redeuntes ad memoriam obsequia et servicia placida que dilectus 
armiger noster Johannes de Beverlee nobis non absque periculis 

' L. R., p. 213. - Pat. Roll 265, mem. 17. ^ idem 266. mem. 29. ■'idem 267, mem. 
6, 8. ^Cal. Rot. Chart, p. 185. » Cal. Rot. Pat. Tur. Lon., p. 179 b. " Inq. Ad. Quod 
Damnum, p. 335. » Cal. Rot. Pat. Tur. Lon., p. 180. » Cal. Rot. Chart, p. 185. i» Pat. 
Roll 272, mem. 4. "idem 271, mem. 21. ibidem 274, mem. 2. "idem 273, mem. 37. 
"idem 274, mem. 43. '''idem 273, mem. 13. i" idem 276, mem. 6. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 31 

et reruni despendiis a longo tempore impendit" etc.^ In 43 Ed- 
ward III permission was given to Walter Bygod, miles, to grant at 
farm to John de Beverle the manors of Alfreston (Essex) and 
Marham (Norfolk) at a rent of i 200 to Walter Bygod.^ 
In that year also a grant by Ingelram de Courcy to John de 
Beverle of the manor of Tremworth in Kent was confirmed by the 
king.^ Finally he was granted the parkership of Eltham forest 
for life with pay of three pence per day.* He was at this time 
drawing an annuity of i 40, 8s. 9d. for life and he was also paid (in 
this year, 1370) £ 107, 15s. 5d. for his wages and those of his men 
at arms and archers in the war.^ In 1371 he was paid 100m.® 

In 44 Edward III the king granted John de Beverle the manor 
of Rofford in Oxfordshire,'^ and the cuvstody of the lands of 
John de Kaynes, defunct, during the minority of his heir.® In 
46 Edward III the king granted him the custody of all the 
lands of Walter Bygod, chivaler, in Essex and Norfolk, with mar- 
riage of the heir.^ He was also in that year granted an annuity 
of 33s. 4d. and the manor of Rodbaston in Staffordshire.^" The 
next year, John de Beverle received a grant of the reversion to two 
parts of the manor of Godyngdon in Oxfordshire and Buckingham- 
shire, and also of the manor of Bokenhull in Oxfordshire.^^ He 
was at that time paying ten pounds yearly for the farm of the 
manor of Godingdon.^- In 48 Edward III he received a grant of 
the goods and chattels of Thomas de la Bere, an outlaw,^^ and also 
of all the trees cut down in Eltham forest." Finally he had a 
grant of the manor of Bikenhull (sic).^*^ In 49 Edward III he was 
granted certain tenements and rents in London.^*' In 50 Edward 
III, he and his wife acquired the manor of Pencrych (Stafford) 
from Thomas, son of Hugo Blount, Knight,^' and he was granted 
custody of the lands of John Ferrers, Knight, with marriage of the 
heir.^® In 1377 he was one of the witnesses to Edward Ill's will.^^ 
In 1377 he testified against Alice Ferrers before Parliament. He 
said that she took care not to say anything about the matter under 

1 Pat. Roll 278, mem. 8. 2 idem 279, mem. 12. » idem 280, mem. 28. * idem 279,- 
mem. 28. = Devon's Issues 1370, pp. 35, 81. « Rymer, old ed. VII, 178. ' Cal. Rot. 
Pat. Turr. Lon., p. 186. Error for Bofford? » Pat. Roll 281, mem. 2. » idem 287, mem. 
5. 10 idem 287, mem. 18, 34. "idem 289, mem. 17. " Cal. Rot. Pat. Turr. Lon., 
p. 188. " Pat. Roll 290, mem. 8. " idem 290, mem. 10. ^^ idem 290, mem. 30. 
i« idem 292, mem. 28. ^^ C. R., mem. 1. is pat. Roll 295, mem. 23. " Test Vet., p. 12. 



32 Chaucer's official life 

dispute before him. (Ele sol gardst bien de lui qu'ele ne parla 
rien en sa presence. ) ^ 

In 1377 we find an acknowledgement of one hundred marks 
which John de Beverle had lent to the king for the expeditions over 
sea,- and in this year he is said to have been armour-bearer to the 
king^ (Edward III). In 1 Richard II, he acquired a rent of 
forty shillings from lands and tenements in Buckenhull.* In 
1378 certain men were imprisoned for a debt of one hundred pounds 
to John de Beverle and Joan de Bokkyng,^ and in that year he 
paid twenty pounds for leave to alienate certain property of six 
marks rent which he held from the king. In 1378 he was retained 
to serve Richard II and confirmed in his possession of the office 
of parker of Eltham parks, an annuity of ten pounds and the fee 
farm rent of eighty-one pounds for the manor of Hedyngdom.^ 
In 1380 his office of constable of the castle of Leeds, the profits 
of the mills there and the custody of the park there, were exchanged 
for ten pounds to be deducted yearly from his rent of twenty 
pounds paid to the king for the manor of Tremworth.^ 

In 1381 John de Beverle was dead leaving seven manors and 
other property.* In 17 Richard II his wife, Amicia, had become 
the wife of Robert Bardolf, miles.^ 

In the index to his Froissart, Kervyn de Lettenhoeve describes 
John de Beverle as "moult grant baron d'Angleterre' and refers 
to a list of chevaliers who were going to Portugal in 1384 with the 
master of the order of St. James.^° This was certainly not our John 
de Beverle because the latter was dead in 1381. 

Geffrey Stucle 

The first mention I find of Geffrey Stucle is in 1347 when he 
had a grant of the bailiwick of Cork in Ireland made at the request 
of Henry, Earl of Lancaster.^^ This grant was confirmed by one 
of 32 Edward III — an inspeximus and confirmation of letters patent 
of ]\Iaurice, Count Dessemond, according to which Maurice granted 
the bailiwick of Cork to Geffrey Styeucle at the request of Lionel, 
Count of Ulster. According to this last document Stucle had the 
office with all its fees and privileges and was to pay for it a rose 

1 Rot. Pari., p. 14. " Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 29. » Dunkin's Oxfordshire I, 197. * Ms. 

Cal. C. R., p. 14. 5 Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 130. » Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 143. ' idem, p. 506. 

8 Cal. Inq. P. M. Til, 29. » C. R. 235, mem. 35. 'o Cf . Rymer old ed. VII, 451. "Cal. 
Pat. Roll, p. 36 7. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 33 

yearly at the feast of St. John the Baptist.^ In 1348 also a state- 
ment is made that Stiiele is going to Brittany on the king's service. 

In 29 Edward III Stucle appears under entirely different cir- 
cumstances: he is then "vallettus" of the Countess of Ulster and 
is paid forty shilh'igs and sixty shillings for attending to certain 
business of the countess.^ Again he is mentioned as "vallettus" 
of the Countess of Ulster, staying in London on her affairs, and 
paid sixty shillings therefor.^ In 31 Edward III he had a grant — 
as "vallettus" of the king's household — of ten marks per annum, 
"for good services to the king," etc.* Evidently then Stucle 
came into the king's household, just as Chaucer did, from the 
household of Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster, and it is to be noted 
that he received an annuity within a year or a little more, possibly 
as soon as he shifted to the king's service. In the same year he was 
sent on a mission of the king's and paid 26s. 8d.'' In 33 Edward III 
he was sent on the king's secret business to Normandy and paid 
£16,13s.4d. for his wages.'' He was paid ten pounds more in the 
same year for a mission of the king's — possibly the same as the 
foregoing." In 35 Edward III he was sent on the king's business 
to Normandy and paid ten pounds for his wages. ^ Likewise in 
the same year he was paid twenty pounds for his wages in going 
to France and Normandy in the diplomatic service of the king — 
possibly the same as the foregoing." In 36 Edward III he was paid 
ten pounds for going on another journey ^" and £6,13s.4d. for a 
journey on the king's business to Britanny." In the same year he 
was paid sixty shillings for his robe.^- In 37 Edward III he was 
sent to Jersey in the company of Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster,^^ 
and his annuity was increased to twenty marks.^* 

In 38 Edward III Stucle was granted, at his own request, 
custody of all lands and tenements which were formerly the prop- 
erty of Richard de la Rynere, defunct, during the minority of the 
heir.^'^ In 39 Edward III he went on a diplomatic mission to the 
duke of Britanny, and was paid £26,13s.4d. therefor.^** In 40 
Edward III he was granted one tenement and two shops in the 
parish of St. Michael over Cornhill, London.^'' In 41 Edward III 

^ Pat. Roll 255, mem. 29. 2 issues, P. 212, mem. 22, 27. a jdgm, P. 294, (214?) 
mem. 23. < Issues, P. 217, mem. 14. ^ i^gm^ mem. 18. "idem, P. 223, mem. 17. 'idem, 
P. 222, mem. 20. s idem ^ i69, mem. 30. » idem A 169, mem. 38. ^ issues, P. 228, 
mem. 2. " idem, P. 229, mem. 25. ^ idem. " idem, P. 232, mem. 20. " Pat. Roll 267, 
mem. 21. i= idem 269, mem. 43. ^« Issues, P. 239, mem. 31. "Pat. Roll 273, mem. 35. 



34 Chaucer's official life 

he was paid forty pounds for a mission to Spain.^ In 42 Edward 
III he was paid forty pounds for a journey to the Prince of 
Aquitain." In 1370 he was given ten marks in addition to his 
wages for the five voyages which he had made to Calais for the king.^ 
In that year also he was sent on secret business of the king to 
Nottingham.* 

In 47 Edward III, Stucle was sent to Flanders with certain 
letters of privy seal directed to various bannerets and knights of 
the king's retinue who were staying in Germany, directing them to 
prepare tliemselves to go with John, duke of Lancaster, to France 
on the king's business.^ For this he was paid £13,6s.8d. and he 
received ten pounds more for a journey to Flanders with letters 
directed to Simon, Archbishop of Canterbury." In 49 Edward III 
he was sent to Brugges to report to the council the results of the 
conference between the ambassadors of the king and the king of 
France for a treaty of peace. ^ In the same year he was granted 
custody of all the lands and tenements formerly belonging to John 
Dakeneye, chivaler, defunct, with marriage of the heir.- In 50 
Edward III he was paid ten pounds for transacting certain arduous 
business pertaining to the king in Flanders.^ In 1 Richard II, 
Stucle was sent to Leycester with a letter of private seal directed 
to John, King of Castile and Leon, Duke of Lancaster, certifying 
to the duke the death of the countess of March and excusing the 
count of March on that account from his journey to the north." In 
the same year he was sent to the north with a letter directed to John 
of Lancaster ordering the latter to come to London to the king's 
council. ^^ In 2 Richard II he was paid a hundred shillings for a 
journey to various parts of England to get money for a royal 
expedition.^^ In 1378 his grant of an annuity — here stated to be 
twenty pounds — was confirmed and he was retained in the king's 
service.^^ In 10 Richard II it is stated that Richard de la Panetrie 
had married his widow; evidently he had not been dead long for 
the king paid to his widow £37,6s.8d. due to him.^* 

1 Issues, P. 248, mem. not numbered. ^ Issues, P. 249, mem. 4. ^ Devon's Issues, p. 
409. •'idem. ^ jggues, P. 262, mem. 9. "idem 264, mem. not numbered. ^ idem, P. 
271, mem. 17. s p^t. Roll 293, mem. 19. "Issues, P. 273, mem. 20. i" idem 295, mem. 
IL "idem 295, mem. 17. ibidem, P. 298, mem. 23. i' Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 181. "Issues, 
P. 315, mem. 11. 



THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING's HOUSEHOLD 35 

Georg Felbrigg 

Mention of George Felbrig first occurs in 34 Edward III when 
he was granted an annuity of twenty marks.^ In 37 Edward III 
George Felbrigg and William Elys were granted the farm of all 
the customs except those of wool and wool-fells in the town of 
Magne Jernemuth for one year.- They seem to have held this farm 
for a number of years, certainly in 40 and 41 Edward III, by 
yearly grants and at a rent of twenty-two pounds per annum.^ 
In 1370 he was paid £31, lis. 10 d. for the expenses of himself 
his men at arms, and archers in the war.^^ In 44 Edward III 
he was receiving an annuity of twenty pounds,* and in the same 
year he had a grant at farm of the hundred of Northerpyng- 
ham, and Southerpyngham, paying fifty pounds yearly therefor.^ 
In 47 Edward III he was granted custody of the priory of Tostes 
at a farm of sixty-three pounds yearly.*^ In 48 Edward III the 
bailiff of fees, etc., in Norfolk and Suffolk was ordered by the 
Duke of Lancaster to deliver the lands and tenements late belonging 
to Elizabeth, Dame de Aspall, to George de Felbrigge who had 
married Margaret, daughter of the said Elizabeth. '^ In 49 Edward 
III he was granted a messuage with pertinences in Grippewic.^ In 
50 Edward III he had a grant of the "balliva" of the hundred of 
Rockeford in Essex, and also of the custody of Haddele Castle.^ 
In 51 Edward III he was sent on secret business of the King to 
John, duke of Brittany, in Flanders, and paid £13, 6s. 8d. for his 
wages for the journey. ^^ 

In 1377 he is said to have been one of the jury that found Alice 
Ferrers guilty of maintenance^^ ; certainly he witnessed against her 
before Parliament.^- In 2 Eichard II he was sent on secret busi- 
ness of the King with John de Burle and others to Milan ; for the 
voyage he received i23, 6s. 8d.i=^ In 4 Richard II he was sent to 
the King of the Romans and of Bohemia on secret business con- 
nected with the marriage of the King, and paid £66, 13s. 4d. for the 
journey.^* In 1382 he and John Herlyng acquired a messuage and 
sixty acres of land.^^ In 5 Richard II he was paid for a certain 

1 Pat. Roll 261, mem. 2. - idem 268, mem. 49. ^ ping Roll 167, mem, 10, 168, mem. 
16, 3a Devon p. 440. * Devon's Issues, p. 66. "Fine Roll 171, mem. 26. "idem 174, 
mem. 16. 'Abstracts and Indexes (Long Room — Rec. Off.) I, 157 dorso. ^ Pat. Roll 
293, mem. 3. » Abb. Rot. Orig. II. 310. "Issues, P. 274, mem. 11. " Blomefleld's 
Norfolk VIII, 107 ff. ^^ R^t. Pari. p. 14. " issues, P. 298, mem. 20. " Issues, P. 303, 
mem. 2. is Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 121. 



36 Chaucer's official life 

voyage to Germany £75, 6s. 8d. and for a voyage on king's secret 
business to Flanders, ten pounds/ In 1384 he was granted for 
life the ten pounds yearly due from him from the issues of the 
Castle of Colchester. In this document his services as King's 
messenger beyond the seas are expressly mentioned.^ He seems to 
have had custody of the castle of Colchester, for when later in 1384 
the King granted it to Robert de Veer, he gave instead forty pounds 
yearly to George Felbrigg.^ In 7, 8 Richard II he was granted 
free warren for certain estates in Suifolk.* In 1385 the King 
granted to George Felbrig, whom the King on his entry into 
Scotland had advanced to the rank of Knight, forty pounds yearly 
to enable him to support his estate more honorably.^ He had with 
him when he was in the King's expedition to Scotland eight es- 
quires and bowmen.*' 

In 11 Richard II George de Felbrugg was sent to the Duke of 
Gueldres at Middleburgh to receive his homage on the part of the 
King; for his expenses on the journey he was paid thirty pounds.'^ 
In 1389-92 he was mentioned frequently in the Patent Rolls as 
Justice of the Peace in Suffolk.^ In 14 Richard II he was paid 
forty pounds for a journey to the King of the Romans, and in 15 
Richard II a hundred pounds for the same journey.'' In 1399 
nine grants made by Richard II to him, w^ere confirmed by Henry 
IV.^'' In 1401 a George Felbrig married Anne, late the wife of 
Robert Charles, Knight.^^ 

Blomefield gives the following additional information about 
Felbrig. In 7 Richard II he and Margery his wife held the man- 
ors of Wortham and Ingham in Suffolk. About the same time 
Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, granted to him and Roger Mares- 
chall, esquire, the manor and park of Standon in Hertfordshire, at 
farm. He was one of the King's protectors in the latter 's tenth 
year, and in 15 Richard II, he was one of the Lieutenants in the 
court of chivalry to try the ease of Lords Morley and Lovell. His 
will was dated 3 February 1400.^- 

1 Issues, P. 304, mem. 19, P. 305, mem. 13. ^ c^i. Pat. Roll, p. 367. ^ idem, pp. 440, 
442. *Cal. Rot. Chart., p. 190. » Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 18. "Issues, P. 312, mem. 17. 'idem, 
P. 316, mem. 2. » Cal. Pat. Roll inde.x. ^ Issues, P. 323, mem. .5, P. 324, mem. 5. i" Cal. 
Pat. Roll, p. 77. "idem, p. 539. i= Blomefield, VIII, pp. 107 ff. 



THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE 

The office of Justice of the Peace developed in England in the 
fourteenth century. The main outlines of its growth can be in- 
dicated by the statement of a few significant facts. In 1327 it 
was enacted that "good and lawful men" be assigned to keep the 
peace. In 1330 they were given power to return indictments. In 
1360 one lord and with him three or four of the most worthy of the 
county, with some learned in the law, were given power to arrest 
malefactors, to receive indictments against them, and to hear and 
determine at the King's suit all manner of felonies and trespasses 
done in the county. In 1362 it was directed by statute that the 
justices should hold sessions four times a year, and, in 1388, that 
they should be paid four shillings a day during the sessions.^ In 13 
Richard II it was enacted that the justices should be "the most 
efficient Knights, esquires and gentlemen of the law" of the 
county.^ 

The justices of a given county were derived from three classes.^ 

(a) those appointed by being named in the schedule. (The 
Lord Chancellor made the appointment, usually relying upon 
the Lord Lieutenant, or the custos rotulorum, of the county.) 

(b) virtute officii — i. e. the Lord Chancellor, Lord President of 
the Privy Council, Lord Privy Seal, Justices of the Supreme 
Court, etc. 

(c) holders of minor judicial offices, county judges, etc. 

Of those named in the list of Justices of the Peace for Kent in 
1386 at least four fall under class (b) ; Robert Tresilian, Robert 
Bealknap, David Hannemere, and Walter Clopton were at that time 
Justices in the King's courts and their names occur (evidently ex 
officio) in the lists of justices for many of the counties of England. 
Since they very likely never sat with the Justices of the Peace in 
Kent, they may, for our purposes, be disregarded. 

We cannot be sure that Chaucer ever actually sat on this com- 
mission or that he knew personally any one of his fellow justices. 
Consequently there is no intrinsic interest in a study of their in- 

1 Summarized from Maitland's Constitutional History and G. E. Howard. Neb. U. 
Studies, pp. 44, 53. ^ Tjj^ygjj enacted after Chaucer's time as justice, this indicates very 
nearly a contemporary attitude toward the office. ' Encyclopedia of Laws of England, 
vol. 7, p. 587. 



38 Chaucer's official life 

dividual careers and personalities. But a few notes about them will 
give us some impression of the type of men with whom Chaucer 
was associating and the importance of his social position. 

In the fourteenth century the name of the Constable of Dover 
and Warden of the Cinque Ports always heads the list of justices 
in Kent. The liolder of that office in 1387 was Simon de Burley, 
one of the most influential men in Richard II 's court. This man 
was not of noble birth. Barnes (quoted by Kervyn de Letten- 
hoeve)^ says that "Walter Burley was so renowned for his learning 
at Oxford that he became the almoner of the queen (Philippa ( ?) ) 
and the tutor of the prince of Wales. One of his relatives, Simon 
de Burley, was included among the group of young people brought 
up with the prince, and soon he became the latter 's intimate friend, 
and afterwards one of the tutors of his son, Richard II. He en- 
joyed the greatest favour under Richard II, and belonged to the 
group of the King's friends, Robert de Vere, Michael de la Pole 
and Nicholas Brembre. He had been connected always with the 
family of Richard II (a fact illustrated by his being named by 
Joan, mother of Richard II, one of the executors of her will, 
1385).- In 1377 Richard II confirmed to him— "the King's 
father's Knight" — a grant of a hundred pounds yearly made by 
the King's father and the custody of Kerwerdyn castle.'^ In the 
same year he granted de Burley the office of constable of Windsor 
Castle for life, the abbot of Fecampe's manor of Sloghtre,* rent 
free, during the war, and the office of master of the falcons.-^ In 
1378 he confirmed to de Burley the custody of the manor of 
Chiltenham (Gloucester) and the fee simple of the castle and lord- 
ship of Lanstephan.^ In 1382 Richard granted him the office of 
under-ehamberlaiu of the King's household for life, and appointed 
him surveyor of the lands in South Wales in the King's hands dur- 
ing the minority of the heir of Edmond Mortimer.'^ In 1384 the 
King granted him for life the consta])leship of Dover Castle and 
the wardenship of the Cinque Ports, and three hundred pounds 
yearly tlierefor (and for the maintenance of himself, chaplains, 
etc.) with provision that he exercise the office himself.® In 1388 he 
was attainted of treason with the other favourites of the King and 
executed. It is reported that people in Kent rose in rebellion to 

J Proiss<art XX, 487. = Test. Vet., p. 15. ^ Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 223. * idem, pp. 78, 21, 
223. 6 idem, p. 78. "idem, p. 119, 256. ''idem, p. 164. » idem, p. 367. 



THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE 39 

demonstrate their loyalty to him. At his death Michael de la Pole, 
William Wingfield and he possessed together extensive lands, and 
he himself had some seven manors in Kent.^ 

The John de Cobeham whose name follows that of de Burley in 
the list, was one of the most eminent barons of his day. I shall 
merely outline a few of the most important features in his career. 
He came of one of the oldest families in Kent.- His father had 
been at various times admiral of the King's fleet in the west, jus- 
tice in Kent, and constable of Rochester. His mother was Joan, 
daughter of John, lord Beauchamp of Stoke. In 40, 41 Edward 
III John de Cobeham served in the wars in France ; in 41 Edward 
III. he was ambassador to Rome. In 1 Richard II he was a mem- 
ber of the King's council, served later in France with three Knights, 
105 esquires and 110 men at arms, and was made a banneret. In 
10 Richard II he was one of the thirteen lord governours of the 
realm, appointed to oversee the government of the King. From 
1377 on he, was on many commissions to treat for peace with 
foreign powers. In 1387 he was with the five lords appellant at 
Waltham Cross (evidently then he was of the party of Gloucester 
and Arundel). He was Member of Parliament from Kent in 1390, 
1394 and 1398. In 1392 he was lieutenant to the constable of 
England, and in the same year he was given a cup in the Earl of 
Arundel's will.^ "With the downfall of Gloucester he fell out of 
favour. He died in 1409, leaving extensive possessions (forty- 
three items in all) in London, Wiltshire, Kent and Surrey. He 
married Margaret, daughter of Hugh Courtenay, Earl of Devon- 
shire.* 

John Clinton came of a prominent Kentish family. He was 
son of John de Clinton of Maxtoke and Ida d'Odingsel.'" He was 
in the French and Scottish campaigns, was appointed on commis- 
sions and was at one time lieutenant of John Devereux, warden of 
the Cinque Ports. He died in 1396, leaving extensive lands in 
Kent (twenty-six items in all).^ He married Margery Corbet, of 
a good Kentish family. 

John Devereux was son of William Devereux. Edward III 
attached him to the person of his grandson (Richard II?) and gave 

iCal. Inq. P. M. III. Ill, 119. 2 Ireland's Kent V, 240 ff. » Test. Vet., p. 133. 
* On Cobeham cf. Nicolas Hist. Peerage, and Kent. Arch. Soc. II, p. 71. ^ Proissart XXI, 
pp. 17 flf. 8 Cal. Inq. P. M. Ill, 228. 



40 Chaucer's official life 

him two hundred marks as a pension.^ He was in Spain with the 
Black Prince. In 1377 he was appointed one of the King's coun- 
cil,- in 1378 constal)le of Leeds Castle for life, and in 1380 Captain 
of the city of Calais.'' He was on many commissions to treat of 
peace with France and Flanders * and from 1384 on he was fre- 
quently summoned to Parliament. In 1386 he was one of the 
council of eleven appointed to govern England. From 1386 to 1390 
(and perhaps longer) he was steward of the King's household.^ 
In 1387 he was with the lords appellant at Waltham Cross.*^ In 
1387 he succeeded Simon de Burley as Constable of Dover and 
Warden of the Cinque Ports." He died in 1394, a Knight of the 
Garter® and the possessor, in right of his wife, of the manor of 
Penshurst, Kent. His only other property seems- to have been the 
manor of Donyngton in Buckinghamshire. '^ 

Thomas Culpeper came from a great Kentish family which at 
one time could boast of having twelve members bearing the order of 
Knighthood.^" A Tliomas Culpeper was IMember of Parliament for 
Kent in 1361 and in other later years. 

Thomas Fogg was Member of Parliament for Kent in 1378, 1380, 
1383, 1384, 1388. He held lands by Knight's service of the Lord of 
Ponynges, and came, througli right of his wife, into part of the 
property of Warresins de Valoynes. In 1377 he was constable of 
the castle of Calais.^^ He was prominent in the wars of the time, 
especially in naval action. In 1386 he w^ent to Spain with John of 
Gaunt.^- In 1405 he died.^^ 

William Rikhill was a justice of the King's bench. He may 
have l)een in the list for that reason, or perhaps because he was an 
inhabitant of Kent. At any rate he came of a landed family in 
Kent.^* He died in Henry IV 's reign. 

John Fremingham, son of Sir Ralph Fremingham of Lose, was 
derived from a prominent Kentish family. ^^ He himself is called 
"chivaler;" was sheriff of Kent in 1378 and 1393, and a Member 
of Parliament in 1377, 1381 and 1399. He was executor of the 
will of William Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury. He died 

1 Froissart XXI, p. 94. Statham Hist, of Dover, p. 380. 2 Rym^j. ^j^ g^j yjj^ 2gj_ 
*idem, p. 259. * idem, 308, 338, 248. ^ Rymer old ed. VII, 495, 675. « Rot. Pari. HI, 
229. ''Ireland's Kent I, 710. » Beltz, p. 323. » Cal. Inq. P. M. Ill, 174. "Kent. Arch'. 
XXI, 212. "Rymer IV, 2. 12 Rymgr old ed. VII, 499. "Kent. Arch. XVIII, p. 36o! 
"Ireland's Kent, IV, 416. ib idem. III, 111. Kent Arch. XXI, 214, XXIII, 57. 



THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE 41 

12 Henry IV, possessing the manor and advowson of the church 
of Otham, and Read Court. 

James de Pekham was of another old Kentish family which can 
be traced as far back as Richard I.^ His great grandfather posses- 
sed the manor of Pekham in Hadlow (temp. Edward I) and the 
estates had been increased since that time. James Pekham was 
sheriff of Kent in 1377 and 1380 and a member of Parliament in 
1372, 1377, 1383, 1388. 

William Topclyf was apparently the only man in the list (ex- 
cept Chaucer) who did not come from a landed Kentish family. 
He was, however, in 1382 and doubtless later, land steward to the 
Archbishop of Canterbury. He held a manor in Kent, whether as 
steward of the Archbishop or of his own right, I have not been able 
to find out.^ 

Thomas Brokhill, of Saltwood, chivaler, derived from a good 
Kentish family, was Sheriff in 1382, 1383, 1385, 1395, 1397, 1399, 
and 1402. He died in 1437-38, leaving no male heirs.^ 

William Brenchesley was lord of the manor of Benenden, 
near Dartford, and a justice of the Common Pleas (in Henry IV 's 
time).* 

1 Ireland's Kent HI, 529. Kent Arch. Soc. XXI, 214, XXVIII, 210. = Kent Arch. 

IV, 125. 3 Ireland's Kent II, 218. Kent Arch. XXI, 215, XVIII, 422, 3. ^ Kent Arch. 

V, 27. 



THE CUSTOMS/ 

[ The duties of the collectors of customs were to ensure payment 
on all wools and leather shipped from their port, to have the wool 
or leather weighed at the wool-beam and each bale tested and sealed 
with the Government stamp or "coket" seal. The collectors, of 
whom there were two in every important port, were clerical officers 
rather than coast guards — their most arduous duty the preparing 
and balancing of the accounts which had to be written by their own 
hands. Their salary was twenty pounds a year each. The control- 
ler, who Avas intended as a check on the collectors, prepared and pre- 
sented an independent account to the Exchequer. He seems to liave 
had no fixed salary, but the collectors were empowered to pay the 
controller's salary out of the takings.- The sums thus paid, were 
however, mostly nominal, (in Chaucer's case ten pounds a year) 
and it is evident that both collectors and controllers were allowed 
to levy fees. 

The collectors of the Port of London during Chaucer's service 
as controller were : 

1374 John de Bernes and Nicholas Brembre, 

1375 Brembre and William de Walworth. 

1376 John Warde and Robert Girdelere. 

1377 Warde and Richard Northbury. 
1378-1384 Brembre and John Philipot. 
1384-1386 Brembre and John Organ. 

These were in every case prominent citizens and merchants of 
London, and after 1377, they were members of a clique especially 
friendly to the King, and inimical to John of Gaunt. To gain the 
right conception of their relations, one must learn something about 
London politics. I shall follow Trevelyan's account'^ of the fac- 
tional struggles in the city, which from the documents which he has 
published and from such evidence as that afforded by the Rolls of 
Parliament, is unquestionably the correct one. The aldermen of 
London were the representatives of the companies (the associations 
of merchants of different sorts), each company choosing a given 

1 Snmmnrized from Hubert Hall: History of the Customs Revenue. = Atton & Hol- 
hmd: the King's Customs. ^ A^e of Wyclif, pp. 278 ff. 



THE CUSTOMS 43 

number according to its influence and wealth. Further in 1376 
a method of electing the mayor and the sheriffs, was introduced, 
which consisted in a vote by companies. Now the most powerful 
of these companies was the Grocers' which at this time had sixteen 
aldermen — many more than its nearest competitor. Allied with 
this company were the other companies of merchants dealing in 
provisions, especially the Fishmongers. The chief opponents of 
this group were the companies of clothing merchants, the mercers, 
drapers, cordwainers, etc. The Grocers' Company and its allies 
stood for the established order of things because they were faring 
well under it. The Mercers and Drapers were rebellious and 
ready to take any opportunity to eject their rivals from power. 

At this time (1376) John of Gaunt 's clique in the court, es- 
pecially Lord Latimer and Richard Lyons, had aroused the enmity 
of the Londoners because of their irregular and "grafting" finan- 
cial operations.^ The Londoners paraded the streets in demon- 
stration against John of Gaunt. The latter demanded revenge and 
gained the deposition of the mayor, Adam Staple. The Londoners 
rallied and elected Nicholas Brembre mayor.^ Brembre and his 
allies defended the Londoners vigorously before Parliament. 
Naturally then John of Gaunt felt a still greater hatred of Brembre 
and his party and was willing to act as patron to their opponents. 
The latter in turn, eager to gain any aid they could in their 
struggles, willingly accepted John of Gaunt as a friend. This, as 
clearly as I can make out, is the train of circumstances which 
brought about an unquestioned condition: John of Gaunt 's hatred 
of London and especially of Brembre and his party, and his patron- 
age of John of Northampton, the chief representative of the 
clothiers. Brembre 's chief political allies were Sir "William 
Walworth, Sir John Philipot and Nicholas Exton. These men were 
very definitely patronised by Richard II in opposition to John 
Northampton, Richard Northbury and John More. 

During Chaucer's tenure of the office of controller only one cer- 
tain adherent of the Northampton faction acted as collector — 
Richard Northbury, who was dropped from the office almost as 
soon as Richard II came to the throne. The other men with whom 
Chaucer had to deal were the very leaders of the royal faction. 
Further they were the most eminent merchants of their time. In the 

^ Trevelyan, p. 10, ^ idem, p. 49. * See Robert Girdelere, p. 46. 



44 Chaucer's official life 

first half of the fourteenth century the king had been forced to rely 
upon foreign, especially Italian, merchants for financial aids, loans, 
etc., since no group of Englishmen could control sufficient money 
to aid him in an emergency.^ But in the second half he had at 
his hand a group of London merchants, powerful enough to meet 
the sudden financial needs of government. Moreover they were 
picturesque figures — Sir William Walworth striking down Wat 
Tyler in the presence of the peasant-host, Sir John Philipot fitting 
out a fleet at his own expense, scouring the channel and finally 
bringing the dreaded pirate Mercer in triumph to London. 

John de Bernes, Collector in 1374, was, in 1360, Sheriff, in 
1363 and 1370 Alderman, of London, and in 45, 46, Edward III, 
Mayor.- In 1370 he lent the King £100, in 1363 he was apparently 
employed in buying for the king's household.^ He was dead by 
1378, and I have not found out anything more about him. 

Nicholas Brembre, Collector 1374, 1375, 1378-1386. See ac- 
count in D. N. B. Brembre was mayor in 1377, 1383-4-5. He was 
the political leader of the group of King Richard's friends in 
London. Of his public career I shall not treat since that is suf- 
ficiently covered elsewhere. To illustrate his financial dealings, 
the following abstracts of documents are important. In September 
1377, the King borrowed £10,000 of Brembre, Wallworth, Philipot 
and John Haddele (grocer, later Mayor of London), and certain 
other merchants, for whom these were attorneys, pledging the crown 
jewels.* In May 1378 this sum was repaid. In 1378, Hugh de 
Calvylegh, captain of Calais, Nicholas Brembre and John Philipot, 
in the service of the war, agreed to pay to William von de Voorde 
of Bruges, the sum of £2,166, 13s. 4d. as directed by the council, 
delivered their bond to the King's clerk, and a tally of that 
amount was placed in the hands of William de Wallworth.^ In 
1382 the King granted Brembre in discharge of 2,000m. lent by him 
to the King to discharge a debt to Sir Bretrucat de Lebret, half a 
mark from the subsidy of each sack of wool and wool-fells passing 
out of the ports of London and Boston, with custody of one part 
of the coket seal of the latter port, until the loan should be fully 
paid.^ In 1380 Brembre, Philipot and Walworth were appointed 

1 W. D. Chester, Chronicles of the Customs Department, pp. 13 ff. ' Riley Memorials, 
pp. 305, 313, 345. Gregory's Chronicle (Camden Soc.) p. 88. 'Devon's Issues, p. 
170. Rymer III, 696. « Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 25. « Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 280. » idem, p. 164. 



THE CUSTOMS 



45 



on a commission to investigate the finances of the realm— together 
with the Archbishop of York, Earl of Arundel, etc. This group of 
men is, indeed, constantly mentioned together; throughout such 
documents as the Patent Rolls, where matters of national finance 
are under consideration, Brembre, Philipot and Walworth, or per- 
haps two of them, are sure to be mentioned.^ 

In the latter part of his career complaints were sent to Parlia- 
ment against him and Exton, by the Mercers, Cordwainers, Foun- 
ders, Sadlers, Painters, Armourers, Pinners, Embroiderers, Spur- 
riors and Blacksmiths— obviously the trades belonging to the then 
defunct party of John Northampton.' 

He was accused in 1388 together with de la Pole, Robert 
Tresilian and other friends of the King of the following: having 
prevented access by others to the King, misled the King, caused the 
King to give manors, lands, and other ofBces to persons of their 
party and to persons from whom they received gifts or whom they 
wished to use (such as Usk), having caused the King to grant them 
money, etc.^ As is well known Brembre was condemned and exe- 
cuted. 

At his death Brembre left extensive estates (entered in the 
Inquisitions) in London and Kent. 

William de Walworth was born about 1320. He was appren- 
ticed to John Lovekin, Stockfishmonger, Mayor of London, 1348, 
1358 1365, 1366.* He was executor of Lovekin 's will and seems to 
have' retained a special feeling of loyalty for him, because in 1381 
he founded a college of a master and nine chaplains to celebrate 
divine service for the good estate of the King, himself, and Mar- 
garet his wife, for their souls after death and for that of John 
Lovekin formerly his master.^ He was elected Mayor of London 
in 1374 and again in 1380. In 1370 he and Simon de Morden lent 
the king i 300. On the day of Edward Ill's death he and John 
Philipot went to the young King, implored his favour for the city of 
London, and asked him to put a stop to John of Gaunt 's persecutions. 
When the Commons voted a subsidy to the King for carrying on the 
war, they expressed distrust of the management of it, and demanded 

lit is noticeable that from 1377 on John of Northampton is never -;e-«°- ^^^^Jf 
Patent Rolls in connection with financial operations, loans to the King, etc. Rot. Farl. 
m 141 r225. ''Rot. Pari. Ill, 230. ^Woodcock, Lives of Lord Mayors, Surrey Arch. 
Coll. VIII, 277 ff. ^ Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 99. 



46 Chaucer's official life 

that the funds be intrusted to Walworth and Philipot, treasurers for 
the war. In 1381 Walworth accompanied the boy King at his meet- 
ing with the Peasant leaders, and he, Brembre and Philipot were 
knighted by the King for their l)ravery on this occasion. He 
died in 1381. Walworth was appointed on many commissions of 
various sorts and dealt extensively in land. 

John Warde did not bulk so large in London affairs as did 
the others and consequently I have been able to learn but little about 
him. He belonged to the Grocers' Company and consequently 
without doubt to Brembre 's faction.^ He had been sheriff in 1366 
and was elected Mayor of London in 1375.- 

RoBERT GiRDELERE Is even more difficult to trace than Warde. 
He was sheriff of London 1368-9.^ I have found reference to a 
transaction in which Robert Girdler agreed to buy certain cables 
and cords.* Consequently he may not have been a dealer in pro- 
visions and was perhaps a member of John Northampton's party. 
The last reference that I have found to him is the date of his col- 
leetorship, 1376. 

Richard Northbury was a leader of John Northampton's 
party. He was a member of the Mercer's Company.-^ In 1384 he 
was found guilty with John of Northampton of sedition, and im- 
prisoned. Certain tenements which he held in London were for- 
feited to the King.*^ In 1385 the King granted him 10m. a year for 
clothing and 26m. a year for victuals, while he was a prisoner in 
Corfe Castle.'^ In 1391 the Commons petitioned the King to annul 
the decision against him and to restore him his lands, at the same 
time making similar petitions for John Northampton and John 
More. All three were granted.® 

John Philipot is treated in D. N. B. He was apparently a 
shipowner, and certainly a member of the Grocers' Company. In 
1363 he was appointed on a commission to seize forfeited goods for 
the King. In 1364 he was granted license to buy victuals and take 
them to Calais. In 1378 he was elected Mayor. In 1379 Sir Roger 
Beauchamp, lord chamberlain to the King's household, bequeathed 
him "my great cup gilt, which the King of Navarre gave me," 
and made him one of the executors of his will. In the same year he 

1 Orridge, Citizens of London. 2 c^j] ^^ London Cit. (Camden Soc.) pp. 88, 89. 

»Coll. of London Cit. (Camden Soc.) p. 88. ■• Cal. of Letters, City of London, p. 144. 

6Cal. Rot. Pat. Turr. Lon., p. 223. " Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 481. ' idem, p. 548. « Rot. 
Pari., p. 292. 



THE CUSTOMS " 47 

contributed largely to fitting out a fleet against the French, hir- 
ing a number of ships at his own expense and redeeming a thous- 
and sets of armour and arms which had been pawned. In 1383 
he was appointed on a commission to treat of peace with the Duke 
of Flanders. He died in 1384. 

John Organ was alderman of London and sheriff in 1385.^ 
I have not been able to discover what company he belonged to. In 
1378 he was appointed one of the collectors of the tax of two-fif- 
teenths.- In 1383 he was appointed one of the collectors of the 
subsidy of 2s. from each tun of wine and 6d. in the pound from 
the merchandise in the port of London.^ From these appointments 
it seems likely that he was friendly to the Brembre faction — 
note also that he succeeded Philipot at the latter 's death. 

iCal. Pat. Roll, p. 90. 2 Rymer IV, 34. » Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 128. 



OTHER ASSOCIATES OF CHAUCER 
John de Burley 
John de Burley, with whom Chaucer in 1376 went on a diplo- 
matic mission, was a brother of Simon de Burley/ He was cer- 
tainly attached personally to the Black Prince, for in 1378 Richard 
II confirmed to him a grant made by himself when prince (51 
Ed. Ill) confirming a grant of his father the prince of Wales (41 
Ed. Ill) of £40 yearly for de Burley 's services, especially at the 
battle of Nazare where he M^as the prince's bodyguard.- In 1373 
he was appointed Captain of Calais and commissioned to super- 
vise the fortifications of Oderwyk and other places besides Calais.^ 
In 1375 he was on a commission to treat for peace with France.* 
In 1377 he was a witness of Edward Ill's will,'"' and stepped out 
of the position of Captain of Calais.'' In 1377 he was granted the 
constableship of Nottingham Castle for life.'^ (He gave it up in 
1381 ).« In 1378 Richard II confirmed to him a grant (47,50 Ed- 
ward III) of 40m. yearly in addition to the £40 already granted.^ 
In 1378, £40 yearly were granted at his supplication, to his son 
W. de Burley, esquire, ' ' retained to stay with the King. " ^*^ In 
1377 John de Burley, Knight of the King's Chamber,^^ was given 
the custody of Sherwood Forest.^- In 1378 he had the King change 
his grants of £40 and "40m. to one of 100m. and give the latter to 
his son, John de Burley, Kt.^"* In 1378 he was on a commission to 
treat for the marriage of Richard II with a daughter of the Duke 
of Milan." Later he was engaged in negotiations for Richard's mar- 
riage with Anne of Bohemia. While so employed, he and Michael 
de la Pole and Gerard del Isle were taken prisoners and held for 
ransom. On this occasion the King sent money for the ransom of 
the three. ^^ On another occasion he was taken prisoner in Germany 
after having been sent as messenger to the King of Bohemia, and 
the King contributed 500m. to his ransom.^*' In 1381 he gave up the 
custody of Sherwood forest, and also that of Nottingham Castle." 
In that year and the following he and Simon de Burley are men- 
tioned in connection with transfers of land.^^ In 1382 he was a 

1 C. R. 242 mem. 17. ~ Ca]. Pat. Roll, p. 197. = Rympr III, 989, 992. * Rymer III, 
1021. "Test. Vet., p. 11. " Rymer IV, 2. ' Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 34. s idem, p. 60. "idem, 
p. 108. ^oidem, p. 283. "He was also so mentioned in 1370. i= Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 33. 
"idem, p. 281. " Rymer old ed. VII, 213. '= Devon's Issues III, 224-5. "Issue Rol) 
(Devon) 7 Rich. II, p. 225. "Cal. Pat. Roll, pp. 54, 60. "idem, p. 160. 



OTHER ASSOCIATES OF CHAUCER 49" 

Justice of the Peace in Hereford. In 1385 he was granted for 
life the custody of the alien priory of Wotton Waweyn, provided 
that its value should not exceed £45, 13s. 4d. yearly, the rent 
which he was wont to pay for it.^ I find no later mention of him, 
except the rather doubtful one of his inheriting land from Simon 
de Burley (in 1388). 

Sir Edward de Berkeley 

Sir Edward de Berkeley was a Knight of the chamber to 
Richard 11.^ In 1376 he was appointed on a commission to treat 
for peace with France.^ In 1378, Richard II confirmed a grant 
made by himself when Prince (50 Edward III) confirming letters 
patent of his father (45 Edward III)— of fifty pounds yearly.* 
In 1378 he is mentioned as going on an expedition with John of 
Graunt,^ and is again appointed on a commission to treat for peace 
with Flanders.^ He died 4 Richard II, leaving a manor and some 
lands in Suffolk.^ His will, which is extant,^ directs that his body 
be buried in the church of St. Mary Carmelites in Calais; and 
bequeathes his "dominion and monastery at Hikeling" to "Sir John 
Clanbrow" (probably Sir John Clanvowe). 
Sir Thomas de Percy 

Sir Thomas de Percy, with whom Chaucer was sent to Fland- 
ers in 1377, was brother of Henry de Percy, count of Northumber- 
land.^ He was with the Black Prince at Bergerath, 44 Edward 
III.^" In 1378 a grant by Edward III to Thomas de Percy, "whom 
the King has retained to stay with him," of 100m. yearly was con- 
firmed.^^ In that year and at many times subsequent he was admiral 
of the north.^- In 1378 he was appointed with others to treat with 
the King of Scotland,^^^ in 1379 to treat with the Duke of Brittany." 
From 1381 on many pardons were granted at his request. In 1381 
he was appointed custodian of the Castle of Brest. In 1383 he 
was on a commission to treat with Flanders and France.^'" In 
1386 he was sub-chamberlain in the King's household (literally 
' ' southchamberlain ") .^^ By 1392 he was chamberlain of the house- 
hold.^^ In 1398 he was made Earl of Worcester ^« and appointed 
with John of Gaunt on a commission for redressing violations of 

'Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 45. 2 Rymer IV, 53. ^ jdem III, 1067,9. * Cal. Pat. Roll, 
p. 232. sRynier IV, 45. « Rymer IV, 53. '^ Cal. Inq. P. M. Ill, 28. » Tggt Vet., p. 
113. «Rymer IV, 51. i" Dugdale I, 285. "Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 108. ^Mdem, p. 327. 
"RymerlV, 51. " Rymer old. ed. VII, 223. ^Mdem, 412. ^ idem, 675. "idem, 721. 
'» Dugdale I. 285. 



50 Chaucer's official, life 

the truce. In 1399 he was appointed executor of the Duchess of 
Gloucester's will. He was beheaded in 1403 because of his con- 
nexion with the rising of Hotspur. He was a Knight of the Garter. 

Sir William de Beauchamp 

That Sir William de Beauchamp was a friend to Chaucer 
has been recognized for some time. In May 1888 Mr.W. D. Selby 
called attention to this connection with Chaucer in a short article 
in The Athenaeum. In this article ]\Ir. Selby gave a few facts about 
him, gathered professedly from Dugdale, but omitted all mention of 
the curious connection Sir William de Beauchamp had with the 
property of the Earl of Pembroke, for his custodianship of which 
Chaucer was one of the sureties. 

William de Beaucliamp was a younger son of Thomas, Earl of 
Warwick.^ In 40 Edward III he attended John of Gaunt in his 
expedition into Spain. In 44 Edward III he served as a Knight in 
France, in the retinue of John of Gaunt, and again in 47 Edward 
III. In 47 Edward III de Beauchamp signed an indenture to serve 
John of Gaunt in peace and in war during his life in consideration 
of one hundred marks yearly and wages for six horses and four 
boys.^ He had been connected with John of Gaunt 's household 
even earlier, in 1340 and 1346.'^ In 1 Richard II he served with 
Edmund de Langley, Earl of Cambridge, in Spain with 200 men- 
at-arms and 200 archers, and in the King's navy at sea under John 
of Gaunt. In 13 Richard II he served again in France. 

In 1377 he was granted for life the custody of Feckanham for- 
est and park at a farm of i 37, 14s. 4i/2d. From the beginning of 
his reign, Richard II granted many pardons at the supplication of 
William de Beauchamp. In 1379 he was chamberlain of the King's 
household; in 1380 he was granted an annuity of 200m.* He was 
regularly on commissions of the peace in Warwick, in company 
with his brother, the Earl of Warwick. In 1379 he and Lewis de 
Clifford aided Robert de Ferrers in acquiring the manor of Wemme 
in fee.^ In 1383 he was appointed on a commission to treat with 
Flanders. In 1384 he was appointed Captain of Calais — a position 
he held until 1392. 

To return now to one matter in which Chaucer is closely con- 
nected with William de Beauchamp. In 1378 the King granted 

*Cf. Diigdale's Baronage I, 238 fif, Dugdale Antiquities of Warwickshire II, 1029 fif. 
* Register of John, duke of Lancaster, vol. 13. Misc. Books — Rec. Off. * Same book. 
*Not £200 as Mr. Selby says. See Pat. Roll 1380, pp. .561, 600. » Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 332. 



OTHER ASSOCIATES OF CHAUCER 51 

William de Beauchamp the custody of the Castle and estates of 
Pembroke, in his hands by reason of the minority of the Earl of 
Pembroke. The father of the last Earl of Pembroke, John de 
Hastings, had, by license from the crown, settled all his possessions, 
in the event of failure of his own issue, except the Castle and town 
of Pembroke, upon his cousin William de Beauchamp (his mother's 
sister's son).^ These lands were in the hands of the King in 1378 
because John de Hastings had died and his son was still a minor; 
naturally he appointed the next heir custodian of them. But 
William de Beauchamp 's management of the estates was cer- 
tainly not satisfactory and, if the suretyship of Chaucer was any- 
thing but a form, the poet stood a good chance of losing by it. The 
first notice we find of Beauchamp 's unsatisfactory management is 
in 1386, when a commission was appointed to enquire touching the 
waste in the possessions of John de Hastyngs by William de Beau- 
champ, to whom the King had committed the custody of the land.- 
In the same year we find record of an indenture made between 
Margaret Mareschall, countess of Norfolk, guardian of John de 
Hastyngs, and the said John, on the one side, and William de 
Beauchamp on the other, whereby the latter agreed to surrender his 
custody of the estates, and the former in return to free him of 
liability for the "waste." ^ In 1389 the King appointed a commis- 
sion to enquire touching the waste in the lands of the alien priory 
of Kirkeby Monachorum, county Warwick, in the time of William 
de Beauchamp, Knight, farmer thereof.* 

In 1390 we find a "Revocation for reasons declared before the 
King and council in the present parliament, with the assent of 
the nobles, magnates, etc., of recent letters granting during pleas- 
ure to William de Beauchamp the custody of the lands, tenements, 
etc. of John de Hastyngs."^ In the same year the custody was 
regranted to John Golafre, Knight of the King's chamber, at a 
farm of £ 600 (Beauchamp had paid £ 500). ^^ In 1390, however, 
the young Earl of Pembroke was killed in a tournament, and ac- 
cording to the provisions made by his father, the estates devolved 
upon William de Beauchamp. Other heirs contested his rights 
to them, but he won. A curious story told about his claim, is as 
follows: "Beauchamp invited his learned counsel to his house in 

1 Surrey Arch. Coll. XVII, 29, 30. ^ Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 257. » idem, p. 350. Mdem, 
p. 208. Whether these were part of the Pembroke holdings or not, I do not know. 
Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 180. » jdem, p. 297. 



52 Chaucer's official life 

Paternoster Row in the city of London ; amongst whom were 
Robert Charlton (then a judge), William Pinehbek, William 
Brenchesley, and John Catesby (all learned lawyers) ; and after din- 
ner, coming out of his chapel in an angry mood, threw to each of 
them a piece of gold and said : ' Sirs, I desire you forthwith to tell 
me, w^hether I have any right and title to Hasting 's lordships and 
lands?' Whereupon Pinehbek stood up (the rest being silent, 
fearing that he suspected them) and said: 'No man here, nor in 
England, dare say that you have any right in them, except Hast- 
ings ^ quit his claim therein ; and should he do it being now under 
age, it would be of no validity.' " (Dugdale). 

In 1387 - when Richard -II was preparing for his assault upon 
the Gloucester faction with Avhich William de Beauchamp was 
evidently, as his brother the Earl of Warwick was certainly, con- 
nected, he tried to remove Beauchamp from the office of Captain of 
Calais, by messenger. Beauchamp refused to leave the office, "say- 
ing that he received that charge and trust publicly from the King, 
in the presence of his nobles, and therefore would not quit it in a 
private manner" (Dugdale). When his successor arrived, Beau- 
champ arrested him, and took him to England. There Beauchamp 
himself was arrested but was soon released. In 1393 he was sum- 
moned to Parliament as Baron Bergavenny (a title received in con- 
nection with the Pembroke estates). From 1390-96 I find reference 
to grants of land made by him to religious bodies. He seems to have 
been rather in disfavour in these closing years of Richard IPs 
reign, but under Henry IV he received new grants, of the manor 
of Feckenham, rent-free, and of the custody of the Castle and 
county of Pembroke. He died 12 Henry IV and was buried in 
Black Friars, Hereford. 

He married Joan, second sister and coheir of Thomas Fitz 
Alen, Earl of Arundel. He was a Knight of the Garter. Dugdale 
prints (in his Warwickshire) the wills of William de Beauchamp 
and his wife, remarkable medieval documents. 

Richard Forester 

The name of Richard Forester is connected with Chaucer's first 

in 1378, when Chaucer, about to go abroad on a mission for the 

King, had letters of attorney under the names of John Gower and 

Richard Forester,^ and again in 1386, when a lease for the house 

' Evidently Edward Hastings, a contesting heii\ ^ According to Beltz, p. 229. * Life 
Records, No. 120, p. 216. 



OTHER ASSOCIATES OF CHAUCER 53 

over Aldgate which Chaucer had occupied during his years as 
controller of the customs in London was made out by the Mayor 
and Aldermen to Richard Forester, citizen of London.^ Various 
entries with regard to Richard Forester occur in the public rec- 
ords. Whether all of them refer to one man or not, and whether 
any concerns Chaucer's friend, I cannot say. I shall merely pre- 
sent them in order of their occurrence. 

In 37 Edward III Richard Forester was appointed custodian 
and supervisor of the river bank called ' ' la Ree de Ettemore. ' ' ^ 
In 1369 he is on the list of esquires of less degree.^ In 1370 ten 
pounds were paid out of the Exchequer to Richard Forester, of 
Stanton, who had been sent with six archers to Shropshire to carry 
a certain sum of money from thence to London.* Later in the 
same year he received ninety-one pounds, two shillings, seven pence 
half penny for the expenses of himself, his men at arms and arch- 
ers in the war.^ In 44 Edward III "our beloved armiger" Richard 
Forester of Stanton was granted custody of the manor of Stoke- 
laty in Hereford which had belonged to Richard Rissholm, de- 
ceased." In 47 Edward III, Richard la Forester de Beckele had a 
grant of ten pounds and one robe per annum as a "vallettus" of 
the royal chamber.'^ In 50 Edward III Richard Forester was 
granted custody of the manor of Waterpyrye and one messuage in 
Thomele in Oxfordshire, and the manor of Wormenhale in Buck- 
inghamshire, during the minority of the heir.^ 

In 1378 Richard II confirmed to Richard le Forester of Beckele, 
' ' whom the King has retained to stay with him, ' ' his annuity of ten 
pounds.^ In 5 Richard II the King granted to Richard Forester 
and his son Lambert custody of the royal manor of Bekkele with 
the hamlet of Horton for ten years at a rent of fifty marks per 
annum.^° In 7 Richard II Forester is referred to as an inhabitant 
of Oxfordshire.^^ In 12 Richard II Richard Forester of Stanton 
paid two marks for a confirmation of a grant of Edward III of cer- 
tain lands in Oxfordshire.^- In 16 Richard II Richard Forester, 
citizen of London, with a group of London mercers acquired some 
land.^^ Again in 21 Richard II he acquired more land, but later 
assigned it to his associates.^* 

iLife Records, No. 192, p. 264. = Pat. Roll 267, mem. 6. » L. R., p. 174. * Devon's 
Issues, p. 170. B idem, p. 461. « Pat. Roll 281, mem. 36. ^ Pat. Roll 289, mem. 21. 
8 idem 293, mem. 8. » Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 126. ^ Pine Roll 184, mem. 14. "idem 187, 
mem. 25. i- idem 192, mem. 3. '" C. R. 234, mem. 20 dorso. " C. R. 241, mem. 14 
dorso, mem. 12 dorso. 



54 Chaucer's official life 



Henry Scogan 



With regard to Henry Scogan I have but few facts which do 
not appear in Professor Kittredge's article.^ In 9 and 10 Richard 
II he was a vallettus of Simon de Burley's. ]\Iany entries in the 
Issue Roll of those years indicate that he was employed to carry 
money from the exchequer to de Burley, and to arrange for the for- 
tification of Dover.- In 15 Richard II ten pounds were given to 
Henry Scoggan, scutifer, at Nottingham.^ In 20 Richard II Henry 
Scoggan of Reynham granted to Thomas Wery and others three 
pieces of land in Tostes, for which they were to pay him a penny 
yearly.^ In the same year he and John Hollech, chivaler, went on a 
bond for Henry Reeheford, under penalty of two hundred pounds 
each, that the latter should do no harm to the Gedneys.^ In 21 
Richard II he conveyed a hundred shillings from the Exchequer in- 
to the King 's chamber ^ — an action which suggests that he was 
probably connected with the King's court at this time. 

Oto de Graunson 

The only important fact which I have found with regard to de 
Graunson — aside from those mentioned in Romania XIX — is an 
indenture made apparently in 48 Edward III, between Otz de 
Granson chivaler, and John of Lancaster.^ According to this 
document de Granson agrees to serve the Duke in time of peace 
as well as of war in return for a fee of a hundred marks a year. 

BUKTON 

Skeat has supposed the Bukton mentioned in Chaucer's Lenvoy 
a Bukton, to be Sir Peter Bukton of York. There is, however, at 
least one other possibility. A Robert de Bukton is mentioned in 
3 Richard II as armiger to Thomas de Percy,^ with whom it will 
be remembered Chaucer had some three years before been asso- 
ciated in a diplomatic mission. In 14, 15. and 16 Richard II, 
Robert de Bukton, scutifer of Thomas de Percy, is frequently men- 

1 Harvard Studies and Notes I. ^ jggues, P. 313, mem. 12, 13, 19, 21 (2 entries) 
P. 314, mem. 1, 4, 7, 12, 13. P. 315, mem. 15, 18. P. 316, mem. 1, 2, 16. » Issues, 
P. 325, mem. 8. * C. R. 238, mem. 32 dorso. ^ G. R. 238, mem. 12 dorso. « Issues, P. 
343, mem. 12. ' Duchy of Lancaster Registers, No. 13 f, 134 dorso. On de Graunson, see 
note in Earl of Derby's Expeditions (Camden See.) p. 309. ^ Issues, P. 301, mem. 21. 



OTHER ASSOCIATES OF CHAUCER _ 55 

tioned in the Issue Roll as transmitting money from the Exchequer 
to de Perey,^ and in one case to Louis Clifford.- In 15 Richard II, 
the King inspected and confirmed a patent of Queen Anne dated 
15 Richard II, being a grant for the term of her life to her esquire 
Robert Bucton, of a quantity of pasture and wood called "Gose- 
wold" in her lordship of Eye, "by the yearly service of the rent 
of a rose. " ^ In 1399 this was confirmed,* and in 1401 Robert de 
Bukton is mentioned as constable of the Castle of Eye.'' Robert de 
Bukton was returned to Parliament from the county of Suffolk in 
17 Richard II (1393-4), 20 Richard II (1396-7), 21 Richard 11(1397, 
1397-8) and 2 Henry IV, (1400-1). On account of his constant 
connection with the court, Robert de Bukton would seem more pro- 
bably to have been Chaucer's Bukton, than Skeat's candidate.^ 

ip. 323, mem. H. P. 324, mem. 1, 12, 21. P. 327, mem. 17, P. 328, mem. 16. 
P. 330, mem. 1, 22. ^ P. 323, mem. 8. ^ c^l. Pat. Roll, p. 324. * idem 1399, p. 16. 
5 idem 1401, p. 540. ' On Sir Peter Bukton, see note in Scrope-Grosvenor Roll, II, 466-7, 
containing many facts not in Skeat. 



CHAUCER'S CAREER AND HIS RELATION TO JOHN 

OF GAUNT 

What then is the bearing of all this upon Chaucer's career? 
Let us take up the matter point by point. In the first place it is 
clear that although in a few cases the esquires were connected with 
important families, in none did any come from a major branch of 
an important family and in most the derivation is from ordinary 
stock. Chaucer was then associated with a group of men who 
came from much the same class as himself.^ 

Secondly it appears that the esquires were frequently the sons 
of men connected in some way with the court.- In this respect 
also Chaucer was like his associates, for his father, in 1338 at least 
was in the King's service.^ Further many of the esquires had 
served in the household of one of the King's children before becom- 
ing members of the King's household. In this respect also Chaucer 
with his service in the Duke of Clarence's house was like a number 
of his fellows. 

The exact nature of Chaucer's position in the household it is 
difficult to discover. Dr. Furnivall supposed from an entry of May 
25, 1368, the second half yearly payment of Chaucer's annuity, 
that he was first a "vallettus" of the King's chamber.* But it is 
by no means certain that this is correct. Chaucer is called "val- 
lettus" of the King's chamber only once; in all other early refer- 
ences he is described, if at all, as ''vallectus hospicii Regis." 
There is, I believe, a difference between these two. As I have already 
pointed out,^ a certain confusion Avith regard to the use of such 
phrases undoubtedly exists in the records. As evidence of this 
confusion we find men called "vallettus" after they have been 
called "armiger," and sometimes men who are normally called 
"vallettus camere Regis" named as "vallettus hospicii Regis." 
Yet if we look up the entries with regard to the men called "val- 
letz de la chambre du Roi" in the list of 1368,^ we find that in 
such records as the Patent Rolls where definitely characterized,'^ 
they are generally referred to as "vallettus camere nostre. " For 

iCf., pp. 6-11 above. = p. 12. ^l R. No. 13, p. 145 Intro, p. XI. * L. R. No. 
50, p. 161. ^ p. 17 above. ^ L. R., p. 167. ' In many cases, of course, they are called 
merely "vallettus noster," "dilectus vallettus" or "dilectus servitor." 



Chaucer's career and his relation to john op gaunt 57 

example, William Gambon is so titled seven times and never as 
"vallettus hospieii nostri." ^ Reginald Neuport is called six times 
"vallettus camere Regis." - John Tipet is called the same at least 
five times, and never by any other title.'^ Thomas Cheyne is called 
"vallettus camere Regis" five times.* Thomas Loveden alone is 
called "vallettus hospieii Regis" twice and "vallettus camere" 
once.^ Under the circumstances, if Chaucer ever was a "vallettus 
camerae Regis," we should expect him to have been so called more 
than once. It seems rather more likely that his proper position 
was that of "vallettus hospieii Regis"'' and later of course, "ar- 
miger" or "scutifer. " This view is of course supported by the 
fact that in the household lists his name does not appear in 1368 
as a "vallet de la chambre du Roi" or in 1369 even near the names 
of men who had been "valletti" of the King's chamber. Further 
that Chaucer's position by 1368 was distinctly honourable appears 
from the fact that his name appears as Esquier among a group of 
men who were not engaged in menial occupations of any kind — as 
distinguished from the cooks and farriers of the groups called 
"esquiers survenantz" and "sergeantz des offices parvantz fur- 
rures a chaperon." 

With regard to Chaucer's employment as ah envoy abroad, it 
is clear that he was, when so engaged, performing a customary ser- 
vice, that indeed he was one of several who were constantly used 
in minor missions abroad and that his rank and duties were similar 
to those of a King's messenger today.'^ Likewise the rewards which 
Chaucer received were not extraordinary. Practically every es- 
quire of Chaucer's rank who remained for any considerable time 
in the court received an annuity ; evidently such pensions were part 
of the perquisites of the office. A few esquires received a smaller 
annuity than Chaucer's, many received about the same amount, 
and many received more.® Similarly the special offices which 
Chaucer held, particularly his controllerships, were not evidences 

1 Pat. Roll 285, mem. 2, idem 274, mem. 37, 257, mem. 25. Cal. Pat. Roll 1377, p 
79. Issues, P. 228, mem. 17. C. R. 207, mem. 12. Pat. Roll 295, mem. 26. ^ Cal. Pat 
Roll 1378, p. 139. Issues, P. 237, mem. 17. P. 249, mem. 3. P. 251, mem. ? Pat, 
Roll 288, mem. 21, etc. » iggyes A 169, mem. 35. P. 228, mem. 17. P. 228, mem. 38 
P. 235, mem. 20, etc. * Pat. Roll 262, mem. 23, 254, mem. 4, 255, mem. 25, Cal. Rot 
Pat. Turr. Lon. p. 174. Abb. Rot. Grig. II, 222. ^ Issues, P. 237, mem. 8. P. 250, 
mem. 1. Pat. Roll 266, mem. 5. '^ The household books, published in the Chaucer Rec 
ords, recognize no such classification as "vallettus hospieii Regis," yet the records cer 
tainly point to the existence of such a classification. ' Of. pp. 19, 20 above. * Of. p, 
21 S. 



58 Chaucer's official life 

of remarkable favour : other esquires received the same kind of 
offices and indeed they were apparently regular sinecures for the 
members of the King's household.' So also the grant of wardships 
and forfeited goods can be paralleled in many cases. In two re- 
spects Chaucer received rather less than the other esquires — he was 
given no corrody and no grant of land. 

In one more respect can Chaucer's career be paralleled by that 
of other "esquires" — in that of his marriage. Marriages between 
the esquires of the King and the damsels of the queen were de- 
cidedly frequent.^ 

Indeed, it is clear from the study of the careers of the other 
esquires that, so far as we know, Chaucer received no exceptional 
favours, and that his career was in practically every respect a typi- 
cal esquire's career. 

In all this then there is no evidence that Chaucer enjoyed the 
favour of any particular patron. Aside fiV)m the fact that, like 
Chaucer, some of the esquires had served in the household of one 
of the King's children before entering the King's, I have been able 
in no case to find evidence of connection between them and any 
patron. Since Chaucer received no more favours than did the 
average esquire, there is no particular reason to suppose that he 
had any patron. 

Now let us examine the evidence in favour of his close connec- 
tion with John of Gaunt. We have two pieces of definite evidence 
of a connection between Chaucer and John of Gaunt; Chaucer's 
writing (probably shortly after 1369) of the Book of the Duchess, 
and John of Gaunt 's grant of an annuity of ten pounds in June 
1374. The former does not prove anything with regard to a defi- 
nite relation ; such complimentary poems were commonly written 
for nobles who were not special patrons of the poets ; and Chaucer 
in his Parlement of Foules possibly complimented Richard II in 
much the same way. In regard to the latter piece of evidence — 
John of Gaunt 's grant of an annuity — two things are to be noted, 
first that John of Gaunt had previously given an annuity to Phi- 
lippa Chaucer (in 1372) and, second, that in the grant he gives 
the cause of making it to Chaucer as services rendered by Chaucer 
to the Duke and by Chaucer's wife to Queen Philippa and the 

1 Cf. p. 22 ff. 2 cf. p. 25 flf. 



Chaucer's career and his relation to john op gaunt 59 

Duke's Consort. In the grant to Philippa on the other hand no 
mention is made of Geoffrey. This greater particularity in the 
statement of Philippa 's services in Geoffrey's grant, the fact that 
Philippa was in the duke's household (evidenced by the Christmas 
gifts of silver cups to her) and the fact that nothing else connects 
Chaucer definitely with John of Gaunt, make it seem almost certain 
that the grant of an annuity to Chaucer was made merely in order 
to increase the sum given to Philippa. Grants of this time which 
mention the services of both husband and wife are usually made 
out to both, and undoubtedly in this case the real purpose was to 
give it to Philippa and her husband. 

On the other hand, if John of Gaunt really was "Chaucer's 
great patron, ' ' why did he not give the poet employment in his own 
household ? Anyone who will run thru the Lancashire Registers of 
this time will be struck with the immensity of the duke's income 
and the regal scale of his household.^ Surely had he wished to 
patronize the poet, he could have done so most easily and most sure- 
ly by giving him some honorable post in his own control. Why 
should he have taken the difficult method of procuring him pre- 
carious offices under the King? 

Since the assertions wdth regard to John of Gaunt 's ascendancy 
over Chaucer's career have been so common, however, we ought to 
take up the matter point by point. We have no reason to connect 
John of Gaunt with Chaucer's start in the world — his employment 
in the household of the Countess of Clarence. We know that 
Chaucer's father had relations with the court and, although merely 
a merchant, he may very likely have secured Chaucer's appoint- 
ment to the place in the Countess's household, as the fathers of 
Simon de Burley (not a merchant, but a man of no rank), Michael 
de la Pole, (a merchant), John Legge, Thomas Frowyk and 
Thomas Hauteyn obtained appointments for their children in the 
households of the Prince of Wales and of the King. This was an 
age when the merchant class was obtaining unusual power and 
privileges. Richard II, it will be remembered, was called the "Lon- 
doner's King." It has been shown that John of Gaunt visited 

J^ Cf . Abstracts and Indexes I f. 137 dorso. Warrant to deliver to a damsel for the 
queen (i. e. John of Gaunt's Spanish wife) 1708 pearls of the largest, 2000 of the second 
sort. Warrant to bring him at the Savoy all the Rolls of Accounts of all his Recevors 
General and of his Treasurers of War and of the Household and other officers of the 
Household, there to be deposited and safely kept. Next page — long list of jewels. 



60 Chaucer's official life 

the Countess of Clarence at Christmas 1357, and it has been sug- 
gested that he may have met Chaucer then and taken a liking to 
him. Of actual meeting, however, we have no proof. Chaucer was 
in the service of the Duke of Clarence in October 1360.^; the 
Duchess of Clarence died in 1363; and we learn of him next in 
the King's household in 1367. The transition from the household 
of the wife of one of the King's sons to that of the King himself 
is one which can be paralleled in many cases; we have no need 
to suppose patronage on the part of the Duke of Lancaster to ac- 
count for it. As a matter of fact we have no reason to suppose that 
John of Gaunt knew anything of Chaucer at this time. 

The diplomatic missions, and the grants of annuities and offices 
were not, as I have shown, evidences of special favour; they were 
a regular thing in the King's court. We have no reason to suppose 
that John of Gaunt 's influence in favour of Chaucer was a cause 
for any of them. Further John of Gaunt 's influence would have 
been worthless in helping Chaucer to become Justice of the Peace 
in Kent in 1385. This appointment must have been made by the 
Chancellor — Michael de la Pole — possibly at the recommendation of 
the Lord Lieutenant of the County or the Custos Rotulorura. 
Whether there was a Lord Lieutenant of Kent or not, I do not 
know. At any rate the constable of Dover Castle and Warden of 
the Cinque Ports (at this time Simon de Burley) held powers in 
Kent similar to those of a lord lieutenant, and he occupies the posi- 
tion of the lord lieutenant in the list of Justices of the Peace — at 
the top. Both de la Pole and de Burley were enemies of John of 
Gaunt. Even if the appointment was not due to them, we cannot 
ascribe it to John of Gaunt, for I have been able to find no evidence 
that John of Gaunt had influence in Kent, or that he controlled any 
of the other Justices. 

Furthermore that Chaucer did not owe his place in the customs 
to the influence of John of Gaunt is clear from the fact that the 
collectorships of customs in London, at any rate, were controlled 
by the duke's enemies. If they had sufficient power with the king 
to gain control of those offices, it hardly seems likely that the King 
would appoint a member of the faction opposed to them to serve 
with them. It is to be noted also that Chaucer on account of the 

* See Modern Lang. Notes March 1912 article of Dr. Samuel Moore on The New 
Chaucer Item. 



Chaucer's career and his relation to john op gaunt 61 

business connections of his family — his father was a vintner and 
another relative evidently a pepperer — would be more likely to 
sympathize with the party of Brembre than with that of North- 
ampton. 

Now we come to a point where nearly all writers on Chaucer 
make inferences in regard to John of Gaunt 's influence — Chaucer's 
separation from the office of controller of the customs. Most writ- 
ers have said more or less directly that Chaucer lost the office be- 
cause John of Gaunt had left England earlier in the same year. 
The facts themselves show indubitably that Chaucer's leaving 
office was in no respect due to John of Gaunt 's departure. Before 
discussing this matter, I must say a word about the political sit- 
uation before 1386 and in that year. At the very end of Edward 
Ill's reign John of Gaunt, who had been the real power since the 
death of the Black Prince, became extremely unpopular because of 
his bad administration of the government and his quarrels with 
the Londoners. This unpopularity continued both in the court 
and without. Under the new King the great duke had little in- 
fluence; he was not even included in the great council appointed 
to control the government during the King's minority. Further a 
group of young men, connected with the King, gradually assumed 
charge of affairs — Michael de la Pole, Robert de Vere and others. 
These men were outright enemies of John of Gaunt; according to 
the stories of the time they even made plots to poison and to stab 
him. He himself retired from active political life and, apparently, 
largely because he saw no chance for gaining great power in Eng- 
land, turned his attention to his Spanish projects ; ^ and in 1386 
he left England for Spain. Others of the great lords, however, 
were not content to play a passive role; the brother of John of 
Gaunt, Gloucester, as leader, and the Earl of Arundel and War- 
wick, most prominent followers, were particularly violent in their 
attacks on the King and his friends. To revert now to Chaucer's 
case : these are the significant facts in their order : 

End of March, 1386 ^ John of Gaunt leaves England. 

October 24, 1386 Gloucester, Arundel et al. succeed in 

ousting Michael de la Pole and the 
King's other cabinet officers. 

» Trevelyan's view. ' Or July 7 according to Oman. 



62 Chaucer's official life 

December, 1386 Adam Yardley and Henry Gisors are 

appointed to Chaucer's places in 
the customs. 
These dates speak for themselves ; they show indubitably that 
Chaucer was not removed from office shortly after John of Gaunt 's 
departure; that he was not removed from office (if at all) until the 
friends of John of Gaunt, the men who represented his interests,^ 
had in some measure at least gained the government of the Kingdom. 

A similar condition of affairs appears when Chaucer was ap- 
pointed to his next office in 1389. 

May, 1389 The King regained powers — dismissed Glou- 

cester's friends from office and appointed 
his OAvn. 

July 12, 1389 He made Chaucer clerk of his works at 

Westminster. 

August, 1389 He seems to have asked John of Gaunt to 

return to England. 

November, 1389 John of Gaunt actually returned. 
Richard II then appointed Chaucer to that place a little over a 
month after he had regained his authority, and four months before 
John of Gaunt appeared in England. 

Finally we cannot connect John of Gaunt in any way with 
Chaucer's departure from the office of Clerk of the Works in 
June, 1391. From John of Gaunt 's return to England in 1389 
until 1395 he seems to have been influential with the King. In 
1390 he was made Duke of Aquitaine for life. In 1392 he was am- 
bassador to France, in 1393 he aided in putting down a revolt in 
Chester. He was in England, apparently, most of this time. 

Certainly the analysis of Chaucer's life does not confirm the 
theory that John of Gaunt exercised a ruling influence over his 
destiny. Nor does a study of the connections of his associates in- 
dicate his dependency on John of Gaunt. His friend William de 
Beauchamp was at a later date certainly a member of the Gloucester- 
Warwick faction. But in 1378 and 1380, when Chaucer was ap- 
parently connected with him, Beauchamp was a member of the 
King's household (from 1379 on chamberlain of the household), 
evidently in favour with the King and not a partisan of the Lan- 

1 In the following year his son and heir, the Earl of Derby, was one of the "lord 
appellants." 



Chaucer's career and his relation to john of gaunt 63 

caster-Gloucester faction. Further we know that Chaucer asso- 
ciated in a business way at least with Brembre, Philipot and Wal- 
worth, that he probably knew Thomas Usk, that the latter admired 
him, and that in the King's household he was connected with some 
men like John de Beauchamp and John de Salesbury who were not 
friends to John of Gaunt. Yet toward the end of Richard II 's 
reign we find Chaucer connected in some way with John of Gaunt 's 
son, and when a few years later that son ascended the throne as 
Henry IV, Chaucer received new annuities and aids. The fact then 
that Chaucer was friendly with prominent men in both factions 
makes it incredible that his fortunes were dependent on those of 
John of Gaunt. 

One other suggestion — was John of Gaunt likely to have had 
enough interest in poetry to patronize a poet? I have found no 
evidence that he did patronize other poets or artists of any kind, 
and the impression of his character which a careful scholar like Mr. 
Trevelyan has gained from a study of his career, is not that he was 
such a man as would be interested in the arts. 

From all these facts, I do not see how it can be maintained 
that John of Gaunt was Chaucer's ''great patron." The evidence, 
so far as I can make out at present, leads one to the conclusion that 
Chaucer must have received his offices and royal annuities from the 
King rather than from John of Gaunt, at times when John of 
Gaunt 's influence would have been harmful rather than beneficial, 
or when John of Gaunt was not in England to exercise it. 

Chaucer's Relation to Richard II 

Certain recent investigations have suggested that Richard II 
and his consort Anne may have been patrons of Chaucer. For this 
theory the most definite evidence is derived from references to 
Queen Anne in several of the poems. The most obvious of these 
references is that in Prologue to L. G. W., version F. 11. 496, 7; 
another is the one implied in Koch 's explanation for the writing of 
P. F. ; and Professor Lowes finds two more in his interpretations of 
a line in K. T.^ and of one in the Troilus.- Since this investigation 
has to do wholly with external evidences as to Chaucer's life, it 
is not my business to deal with these references. I would merely 
point out that they can derive no active support from the facts 

iM. L. N. XIX, 240-242. = p, m. L. A. 32; 285 ff. 



64 Chaucer's official life 

which we know about Chaucer's life, for there is no exceptional 
feature of his career as an esquire which points toward patronage 
by anyone. We have no right from the circumstances of his re- 
wards and appointments to suppose that Richard even knew that 
he was a poet, certainly none to suppose that Richard enjoyed his 
poetry and patronized him because of it. 

To be sure we have certain evidences of Richard II 's interest 
in literature, especially the well kno\^^l stories of his suggestion 
to Gower that the poet write the Confessio Amantis, his gift to 
Froissart for the latter 's book of poems, and the payment entered 
in 1380 on the Issue Roll of twenty-eight pounds for the Bible 
written in French,^ the Romance of the Rose and the Romances 
of Percevale and Gawayn. But those are all ; a careful reading of 
the Issue Roll for all the years of Richard's reign has failed to turn 
up another entry which would indicate an interest in literature. 
It is to be noted further that in the entire body of poems left to 
us by Chaucer but a few unmistakable references to the queen 
occur, and none to the King. If Chaucer is compared in this 
respect with his successors Hoccleve and Lydgate a marked differ- 
ence appears. In a single volume of Hoccleve before me - occur 
three "balades" to Henry V, one to the Duke of York, one to the 
Duke of Bedford, and one to the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps the 
striking contrast between this and Chaucer's practice is due to 
different notions as to the function of poetry, perhaps to some 
other cause, but it exists, and it causes one to feel that, in compar- 
ison with Hoccleve at least, the internal evidences of patronage in 
Chaucer's poems are slight indeed. Finally the fact that Chaucer 
was treated favourably by the government of Henry IV would sug- 
gest that his personal relations with Richard II had not been very 
close. 

Some General Points 

Although I have objected to some of the inferences drawn by 
others, nevertheless it seems to me that from the facts viewed in 
their new relations, some legitimate inferences may be drawoi. In 
the first place it seems almost certain that by 1386 Chaucer held 
considerable land in Kent. Every other man on the list of Justices 

1 Devon's translation, p. 213, is incorrect; the phrase in the document is "lingua gal- 
lica." Issues P. 301, mem. 16. " Uoccleve's works I, E. E. T. S. 1892. 



Chaucer's career and his relation to john of gaunt 65 

of the Peace (with the single possible exception of Topclyff) held 
fairly extensive lands in the county; all except de Burley, Top- 
clyff and Chaucer were of old Kentish families. De Burley 's im- 
portance as Constable of Dover (indeed he undoubtedly held the 
office of Justice ex officio) and Topclyff 's position as steward of 
the Archbishop of Canterbury counterbalanced the fact that they 
were not of Kentish stock. What then of Chaucer? He surely 
must have held a manor and lands of considerable value or he could 
never have been high enough in the estimation of the landed pro- 
prietors to gain the Justiceship and even the membership to Par- 
liament. Now, he apparently did not receive this land by royal 
grant; consequently it would appear that he must have had it by 
grant of some great noble or by purchase. In any case we have no 
record to indicate what land he held or by what tenure he held it. 

Again we do not know what Chaucer's income as controller of 
the customs amounted to. It is apparent, however, that the returns 
from the office of controller of the greater custom must have been 
very considerable. If the collectorship of the customs was not a 
profitable office, it is impossible to see why such men as Walworth, 
Philipot, and Brembre should have cared to hold it. That the 
twenty pounds which was their nominal salary was anything like 
all that they received is unbelievable. To suppose that a man who 
could fit out a fleet at his own expense and successfully campaign 
with it against a powerful pirate, should allow himself to be an- 
noyed by so paltry an office is absurd. Yet the office was apparently 
not farmed, and so it seems likely that the income from fees was 
large and attractive.^ To how great an extent Chaucer, aside from 
the ten pounds yearly that he received, shared in the profits, we do 
not know. From the fact that the King in giving the collectors 
and the controller extra rewards seems to have rated the latter at 
about a third of the importance of the former, we might get some 
hint of the proportion in which he would share in the fees. 

Chaucerian scholars have laid great stress upon the grant of 
permission to Chaucer in 1385 to appoint a permanent deputy in 
his office in the greater customs. They have even assumed 
that the L. C W. was dedicated to the queen out of gratitude for 
her supposed intercession with the king, and the consequent per- 
mission, and have used these suppositions as evidence for dating 

^ The View of W. D. Chester: Chronicles of the Custom's Dept., p. 30. 



66 Chaucer's official life 

L. G. "W. Surely too much has been made of this matter. Not 
only have we no evidence whatever to connect Queen Anne with 
the granting of the deputyship ; we do not have to assume any in- 
tercession with the king.^ We know that esquires who were granted 
offices in the customs frequently did have deputies in their offices ; - 
probably leave to have a deputy could be had almost for the asking. 
Moreover, the office of controller, if we can judge from the rec- 
ords of Chaucer's time (cf. Mr. Kirk's print in the Chaucer So- 
ciety — not yet issued) could not have been a very burdensome one. 
Yet even the provision that Chaucer write the records with his own 
hand was not — in the opinion of the officials of the Record Office — 
held to even as early as 1381. The reason for this judgment is that 
the preserved records are written in a decidedly good Chancery 
hand, a style of writing which only a professional Chancery clerk is 
supposed to have been master of.^ Consequently either Chaucer 
must have been a regular Chancery clerk, or he employed a clerk to 
write up the records. If he did the latter — as seems most likely — it 
is hard to see what work of importance can have been left to him- 
self. Why then should he care for a permanent deputy? If we 
look at the circumstances of his life in 1385, we may discover a pos- 
sible reason. In that year, he first appears prominently in con- 
nection with Kent. The sequence of evenrts is : 

February, 1385 — deputy appointed. 

October, 1385 — Justice of the Peace in Kent. 

June, 1386 — Justice of the Peace in Kent. 

August, 1386 — Member of Parliament for Kent. 
He must have been out of London at latest some time early in 
1385, and he may have been occupied with the purchase and man- 
agement of whatever land he possessed in Kent, and with the poli- 
tics of that county. Consequently, he may have desired to have a 
recognized deputy in the office who would relieve him of all offi- 
cial responsibility. One can see no reason why he should have felt 
particularly grateful for the grant of this merely technical freedom. 
Furthermore we can have no knowledge, with our present in- 
formation alone, of why Chaucer ceased to be controller at the end 
of 1386. I have already shown that this could not have been due 

1 See forthcoming article: Chaucer and the Earl of Oxford, in Modern Philology. 

^ Cf. cases of John de Herlyng, Helming Leget, John Hermesthorpe et al. 

' See Tales of the Canterbury Pilgrims, Stokes & Co., Intro., by Furnivall, p. X note. 



Chaucer's career and his relation to john of gaunt 67 

to John of Gaunt 's absence from England. It is almost equally 
certain that it was not due to the fact that Chaucer was a partisan 
of the King or that the council of thirteen was instructed to inquire 
into the conduct of the King's offices and to initiate reforms.^ The 
proof of those statements is this : so far as we know Chaucer's only 
fault in the conduct of these offices was the fact that he "per- 
formed ' ' them by deputy ; now, although the two offices were granted 
in December to Adam Yardley ^ and Henry Gisorz,^ the controller- 
ship of the greater custom was re-granted scarcely six months later 
to John Hermesthorpe * (July 2, 1387) and with that very grant he 
was empowered to exercise the office by deputy. 

Furthermore Henry Gisorz, who succeeded Chaucer in the con- 
trollership of the petty customs, was appointed by Chaucer as his 
deputy, in 7 Richard II ^ in that office. This office was re-granted 
September 2, 1388 to Robert Kesteven.^ Now in the case of the 
controllership of the greater customs, it seems evident that Adam 
Yardeley M^as merely put into the office as a stop-gap. Note that he 
was not considered of sufficient importance to be given another 
grant in 1387 to compensate him for the loss of the office. And 
similarly in that of the lesser customs, it seems clear that Gisors, 
Chaucer's deputy in the office, was appointed temporarily to the 
office, on the departure of Chaucer, and deprived of it again as soOn 
as the King found some one to whom he wished to give a sinecure. 

^ As Colton in his book on Chaucer's England assumes, pp. 58-59. 

= Adam Yardeley, clericus, was in 1383 joined with a Serjeant at arms to take and 
arrest mariners for the passage of the Bishop of Norwich across the channel. This would 
suggest that he was connected in some way with the court, since such duties were com- 
monly assigned to esquires and clerks of the court. 

3 Henry Gisors seems to have come from an eminent London family. (Riley Mem- 
orials pp. 74, 185. Ancient Deeds, A 7833. Maitland History of London, p. 825). 
In 11 Richard II and 16 Richard II he was concerned with John Hermesthorpe in cer- 
tain transfers of land in London. (Ancient Deeds, B 2118, 2121). 

*John Hermesthorpe was a very much more important person. He was for some 
years one of the chamberlains of the King's exchequer, probably as early as 1370 when on 
one day he conveyed payments of their annuities to Philippa Chaucer and three other 
damsels of the queen. He was likewise a priest, for a time confessor to the King, and 
holder of various ecclesiastical preferments, in London and elsewhere. He was in par- 
ticular Master of the Hospital of St. Katherine from 1368 till a few years before his 
death in 1412. The fact that he was in favour with the King and that he was allied 
to exercise the office by deputy, makes untenable the supposition that Chaucer was dis- 
missed because he was a friend to the King, or because he did not actually conduct the 
office himself. (Devon's Issues, p. 359, Cal. Pat. Roll 1379, p. 386. Pull" statement of 
ecclesiastical offices in Bibliotheca Topographica Brittanica II, 82.) 

^C. R. 224, mem. 36. » (Jal. Pat. Roll, p. 502. 



68 Chaucer's official life 

Surely, if one may be allowed to draw inferences from facts, it 
seems most likely that Chaucer resigned the offices either to take 
up some work not now known to us, or to have leisure after more 
than ten years' occupation in office and missions, and that on his 
resignation the King made merely temporary appointments and 
later filled the offices according to his pleasure. 

The theory that Chaucer's surrender of his annuity indicates 
any extraordinary condition or disfavour on the part of his patrons 
is likewise not supported by the facts. In the introduction to the 
Chaucer Records, Mr. Kirk writes: "It may be asserted without 
fear of contradiction, that it was a most unusual thing for any 
man to surrender a pension, and for the King to grant it to someone 
else. Lands and tenements, or offices, were frequently surrendered 
in this way, but not pensions."^ Surely Mr. Kirk's statement is 
too strong, for it is easy to find plenty of examples of transfers of 
annuity quite analogous to Chaucer's. For example, in 38 Ed- 
ward III a grant of ten marks yearly to John Gateneys was, with 
his consent, taken from him and given to Thomas de Fysshebone.- 
Later an annuity held by John de Stone, a valet, was transferred 
by his request to Peter de Bruge.^ Other examples are a transfer 
of an annuity from Hugh Ferrour to John Spencer at the request 
of the former ;* from T. de Laleham to John Stapenhull — at request 
of the former^ — from Richard des Amies to John Andrews — ''at 
supplication ' ' of Richard •* — from John Roose to Roger Lestrange — 
granted by the former,^ — from Peter de Sancto Paulo to John de 
Herlyng — made by the former and confirmed by the King.^ Doubt- 
less many other examples could be found since I have not attempted 
to do more than note the cases that fell under my eye. Apparently 
the sale of annuities was quite as ordinary and recognized a practice 
as that of offices or lands.^ 

ip. XXXVI. 2 Pat. Roll 269, mem. 12. 3 jjem 273, mem. 10. * Cal. Pat. Roll 
1378, p. 248. Bjdem, p. 150. « Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 146, 1389, p. 95. 'Pat. Roll 
1378, pp. 112-113. «Cal. Pat. Roll 1350, p. 574. » John Scalby, to whom Chaucer's 
annuity was granted, seems to have been an esquire in the King's household. The first 
record of him is a grant for life to John de Scalby of the forestership and custody of 
the forest of Parkhurst and Odepark, Isle of Wight (1382). In 1386 John de Scalby 
the elder was on a commission in East Riding (Yorkshire). In 12 Richard II John 
Scalby, esquire of the bishop of Sarum, borrowed twenty shillings from the Exchequer. 
In 17 Richard II he and his wife Mathilda borrowed £ 26, ISs. 4d. i. e. the forty marks 
of his annuity, from the Exchequer. In 1396 the King granted to his esquires Richard 
Cardemewe and John de Scalby the goods and chattels of a certain outlaw, to the value 



Chaucer's career and his relation to john op gaunt 69 

That Chaucer was out of favour from 1391 on, and in financial 
trouble is again difficult to establish. Mr. Kirk has shown that 
his "borrowings" at the Exchequer, in those years, were for the 
most part no borrowings at all but simply a device for getting 
money that was due him.^ Furthermore, many examples of the 
drawing of money "de prestito" from the Exchequer may be found 
in the Issue Roll. In 11 Richard II Philippa Duchess of Ireland 
drew i 133, 6s. 8d. in this way.^ In the same year Edmond Rose 
borrowed money from the Exchequer.^ As shown above, John 
Scalby twice drew money in advance in this way. John Herlyng, 
who in Chaucer's time, was usher of the Chamber, borrowed seven 
pounds four pence in 28 Edward III, repaying it later ; * and in 29 
Edward III drew forty pounds in the same way.^ So hosts of ex- 
amples could be collected from the Issue Roll, of such "borrow- 
ings." Certainly they do not indicate that the "borrowers" were 
financially insolvent. 

Moreover none of the other facts which we have, warrants us in 
assuming that Chaucer was pressed for money and out of favour. 
In January 1393 he was granted ten pounds for good service ren- 
dered in this year now present, i. e. apparently the later part of 
1392— the year following his "dismissal." In addition he was in 
1394 granted another annuity of twenty pounds. In view of these 
facts it would seem that the only definite evidence of Chaucer's 
poverty was the action for debt of i 14. Is. lid. in 1398, but the cir- 
cumstances connected with it— the King's letters of protection and 
the sheriff's inability to find Chaucer— are so remarkable that we 
cannot draw certain inferences from it.® 

Looking at all the facts, then, we must admit that they do not 
form any proper basis for most of the assertions that have been 
made. They do not constitute even the suggestion of proof that, 
when Chaucer lost his controllerships and gave up his annuity, he 
was out of favour with the King, that he was soon in dire financial 



of thirty-seven pounds. In 22 Richard II John Scalby, scutifer, was sent from Lich- 
field to Conway on secret business of the King, and was paid sixteen shillings eight pence 
for his expenses. In 1399 Henry IV confirmed the grant of forty marks a year to John 
Scalby. (Cal. Pat. Roll, 1382, p. 150. idem p. 261. Issues, P. 319, mem. 18. idem, 
P. 332, mem. 23. Cal. Pat. Roll, 1396, p. 48. Issues, P. 344, mem. 11. Cal. Pat. 
Roll 1399, p. 62). 

iL. R. pp. XLV, XLVI. 2 Issues, P. 316, mem. 18. » idem, "idem, P. 294, mem. 
18. B Issues, P. 212, mem. 1. On Herlyng's financial position see p. 27 above. <> See 
Kirk L. R., p. XLVII f. 



70 Chaucer's official life 

straits, and that when again in 1391 he lost the clerkship of the 
works, he was out of favour and pressed for money. 

If we wish to guess at the reasons why Chaucer gave up his 
offices and his pension, we can find plenty of sufficient motives. 
He may have left the offices for several reasons ; he had held the con- 
trollership of the customs of wool for twelve years, a long time for 
the holding of such an office in those days ; he may therefore have 
left because he was tired of them. He may have left them because 
some one had given him something better — we know, for example, 
that in the year after he left the clerkship of the works he was em- 
ployed in some way by the King; so in the earlier case he may 
have received some other office or employment the record of which 
has not come down to us. From November 1386 until November 
1387 we know that RiehariJ II was scouring the Midlands trying to 
gather a force with which to oppose Gloucester; he may have em- 
ployed Chaucer as a secret messenger throughout that year. As to 
the annuity, Chaucer may have surrendered it because he could get 
a good price for it and wanted a large sum of money for some 
purpose, perhaps to buy land or improve it. Or his surrender of 
the annuity may have been made by arrangement with the King, 
who may liave wished to give an annuity to a comparatively new 
esquire, and who may liave recompensed Chaucer in some other way. 

Every fact that we have would fit into the theory that Chaucer 
led a prosperous and important life (in a business and financial 
way) from 137-i to the end of his life. Certainly he must have re- 
ceived a large amount of money in that time ; we have no evidence 
of his having lost any; we know of nothing in his character which 
would lead us to suppose him a spendthrift or inefficient in financial 
affairs. 

I do not wish to maintain that he was always prosperous, but 
only that the facts do not warrant us in assuming that he was con- 
stantly on the verge of ruin in the years when, so far as we know, 
he held no office. 

In connection with the Piers Plowman controversy, I have been 
struck with Mr. Jusserand's insistence that Chaucer did not 
touch upon social or political matters in his poems. That was, as 
Mr. Manly has indicated, very probably due to a theory of the 
proper subject matter of poetry — an idea current in his time and 



CHAUCER S CAREER AND HIS RELATION TO JOHN OF GAUNT 71 

enunciated by Alan Chartier most distinctly. But back of that 
may have been in Chaucer's case certain peculiar traits of character. 
Chaucer was in direct connection with the court and with the city 
at the time when political enmity between two main factions was 
very bitter— so bitter that in 1386 it led to the killing of Simon de 
Burley and Sir Nicholas Brembre as well as less-known men like 
Beauchamp and Salesbury and Berners, and to the flight of men 
like Michael de la Pole and Robert de Vere, and again in 1392 led to 
the execution of the Earl of Arundel, the murder of Gloucester, and 
almost to the murder of the Earl of Warwick. Chaucer was in 
daily contact with men connected with one faction or the other. 
What was his attitude? What party did he follow? I have tried 
to suppose that he was a member of the Gloucester or Lancaster 
faction but I have found facts such as his retention by Richard as 
controller of the customs from 1383-4 on, and his subsequent ap- 
pointment to the clerkship of the works, that could scarcely have 
been brought about by Lancastrian influence. Then I have tried 
to use as a hypothesis the conception that he was a partisan of the 
King. But I have not been able to reconcile with that idea the 
fact that he had the grant of the annuity from John of Gaunt, 
that Henry IV in the year of his accession granted him an extra 
annuity of 40 marks in addition to the i 20 which he confirmed to 
him, and that in 1395 or 1396 he seems to have been in the em- 
ployment of either John of Gaunt or Henry, his son. Consequently 
it seems to me that Chaucer can not have been active in politics. 
At the very time when factional strife was waging about him he 
must have kept practically free from both parties. He seems to 
have had friends in both camps, though by far the greater number 
were in that of the King : Oto de Graunson — a member of John 
of Gaunt 's household — and in later years apparently Henry of 
Derby, represent the Lancastrian side; on the other hand, Louis 
Clifford. John Clanvowe, John Burley — men apparently attached 
to the Black Prince, his wife and his son, — Brembre and Philipot 
with whom he must have been on fairly good terms, and probably 
even Thomas Usk, were men strongly opposed to John of Gaunt. 
Too many things connect Chaucer with both parties to make his 
identification with either possible. 



72 Chaucer's official life 

The reasons why Chaucer did not dabble pronouncedly in poli- 
tics may have been various — a clear perception that such was the 
only safe course for him — an entire indifference and lack of under- 
standing of politics — or what you will. At any rate his connection 
with both parties is certainly in consonance with the exclusion 
from his poetry of political matter of the kind which appears for 
example in Gower. 



INDEX OF NAMES 



Almannia, Henricus, (Almaigne), 11, 

12, 
Archebald, William, 24, 24, 24. 
Archer, Agnes, 22, 26. 
Archer, Roger, 12, 26. 

Alexandra de la Mote, wife of, 26. 
Armes, Richard des, 

See, Cares well, Richard de, 11, 14, 
17, 68. 
Barbour, Reynold (le), 11. 
Bardolf, Robert, 12. 
Bealknap, Robert, 37. 
Beauchamp, John, 6, 12, 18, 19, 20, 
24, 25, 63, 71. 

Joan, wife of, 25. 

le ffitz, 19. 
Beauchamp, Sir William de, 50 if., 62. 
Berkeley, Sir Edward de, 49. 
Bernes, John de, 42, 44. 
Beverle, John de, 11, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26, 
30 flF. 

Almicia, wife of, 26, 30, 32. 
Blacomore, William, 14. 
Bokenham, Simond de. 

See Bukenham, 15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 27. 

Matilda Gerounde, wife of, 25. 
Bonyngton, Roger, 11. 
Breinbre, Nicholas, 38, 42, 43, 44 ff., 

45, 46, 47, 63, 65, 71. 
Brenchesley, William, 41. 
Brokhill, Thomas, 41. 
Bukenham, Simon, 11, 19. 
Bukton, 54 ff. 

Burele, William de, (Burley), 12, 48. 
Burgh, Simon, 11, 15, 19, 21, 27. 
Burley, Sii John de, 12, 20, 48 ff, 

71. 
Burley, Simon de, 38, 40, 48, 54, 60, 
65, 71. 



Byker, Patrick, 6, 12. 

John, 6. 

William, 6. 
Cambridge, 

See Edmund, Count of, 
Careswell, Richard, 11. 
Careu, Nicholas, the elder, 6, 12. 

the younger, 6. 
Cat, John, 11. 
Chambre, Griffith de la, 12, 15, 22, 23, 

27. 
Cheyne, Hugh, 10, 15, 19, 21, 24, 25, 
27. 

Joan, wife of Hugh, 25. 

Roger, 10. 

Thomas, 1], 18, 21, 24, 27, 57. . 

John, 11. 

William, 11, 
Chippenham, Walter, 11, 19. 
Clanvowe, Sir John, (or Clanbrowe), 

49, 71. 
Clarence, — see Lionel. 

Countess of, 60. 

See Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster. 
Clebury, Roger, 7, 15, 21, 23, 24, 27. 
Clifford, Lewis de, 50, 71. 
Clinton, John, 39. 
Clopton, Walter, 37. 
Clopton, William, 7, 23. 
Cobeham, John de, 39. 
Conyngsby, John de, 14, 
Corby, Robert de, 7, 12, 15, 19, 21, 24, 
25, 27. 

Alice, wife of, 25. 
Cornewaill, Piers de, 15, 21, 24, 27. 
Culpeper, Thomas, 40. 
Dabrichecourt, CoUard, or, Nicholas, 
7, 12, 15, 19, 21, 25, 27. 

Elizabeth, wife of, 25. 



\ 



74 



Chaucer's official life 



Devereux, John; 39, ff. 
Edmund, Count of Cambridge, 12, 50. 
Edward, the Black Prince, 12, 12, 
Elizabetli, Countess of Ulster, 13, 33. 
Erchedeakne, Raulyn, 22, 27. 
Felbrigge, George, 8, 20, 26, 35 ff. 
Margaret, wife of, 26, 35, 36. 
Anne, wife of, 36. 
Ferrers, Robert de, 8, 12, 15, 21, 26, 

27, 50. 
Elizabeth, wife of, 26, 
Ferrour, Roger. 

See Bonyngton, Roger, 11. 
Fogg, Thomas, 40. 
Forester, Richard, 52 ff. 
Foxle, Thomas, 15, and note, 21, 27, 
Fremingham, John, 40. 
Frowyk, Thomas, 8, 11, 59, 
Gambon, William, 24, 57. 
Girdelere, Robert, 42, 46. 
Gisors, Henrj% 62, 67, and note. 
Goderik, John, 14. 
Gosedene, John, 14. 
GrauTteon, Oto de, 54, 71. 
Hannemere, David, 37. 
Hauberk, Laurence, 15, 19, 22, 27. 
Hauteyn, Thomas, 9, 11, 15, 21, 27, 

59. 
Herlyng, John de, 9, 14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 

27, 35, 66 note, 68, 69. 
Hermesthorpe, John, 66 note, 67, and 

note. 
Hertfordyngbury, Thomas, 16, 22, 27. 
Irlonde, Richard, 11. 
Isabella, wife of Tngclram de Cour- 

cy, 12, 12, 26. 
Joce, John, 12. 
John of Gaunt, 1 ff., 12, 27, 34, 42, 

43, 45, 49, 50, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 

61, 62, 71. 
Knyveton, Rauf de, 9, 15, 19. 
Lancaster, see John of Gaunt, 
Larderer, Robert, 11, see Maghfeld, 

Robert, 
Leche, Richard, 11, 14, see Irlonde, 

Richard, 
John, 11, 



Leget, Helmyng, 9, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 
24, 25, 27, 66 note, 

Alice, 9, 25, 
Legge, John, 9, 11, 1.5, 18, 19, 22, 26, 
27, 59. 

Agnes, wife of, 26. 
Lionel, duke of Clarence, 12, 13. 
Louth, Robert, 10, 26. 

Joan, wife of, 26. 
Loveden, Thomas, 57, 
Lyngeyn, Hugh, 16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27. 

Agatha, wife of, 26. 
Maghfeld, Robert, 11. 
Mareschall, Roger, 12. 
Markham, Richard, 11, 
Narrett, Hanyn, 15, 22, 27. 
Neuport, Reginald, 57. 
Northbury, Richard, 42, 43, 46, 
Northrugg, John, 15, 22, 27, 
Olnej', John, 26. 

Stephanetta, wife of, 26. 
Organ, John, 42, 47. 
Padbury, John, 20. 
Pekham, James de, 41. 
Percy, Thomas de, 49 ff., 54. 
Philipot, John, 42, 43, 44, 46 ff., 47, 

63, 65, 71. 
Pole, Michael de la, 38, 39, 45, 48, 59, 

60, 61, 71. 
Prage, Nicholas, 16, 18, 22, 27. 
Preston, Piers, 26, 

Alice, wife of, 26, 
Richard II, 38, 48, 59, 63 ff., 70, 
Rikhill, William, 40, 
Risceby, William de, 16, 24. 
Romesey, John de, 10, 15, 19, 21, 26, 
27. 

Margaret, wife of, 26. 
Romylowe, Stephen, 12, 20, 24. 
Roos, John, 24. 

Rose, Esmon, 15, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 
69. 

Agnes Archer, wife' of, 26. 
Salesbury, John de, 18, 19, 24, 25, 63, 
71. 

Johanna, wife of, 25. 



INDEX OP NAMES 



Vo 



Scalby, John, 68 note, 69. 

Scogan, Henry, 54. 

Souch, Robert la, see Zouche, 11, 22, 
27. 

SpigumeU, Thomas, 11, 16, 19, 26. 
Katherine, wife of, 26. 

Stanes, Thomas de, 14. 

Strelley, Hugh, (Straule), 10, 16, 22, 
27. 

Strete, William, 14, 24. 

Stucle, Geoffrey, (Styuecle), 11, 13, 
15, 17, 20, 21, 32 ff. 

Talbot, Gilbert, 10. 

Tettesworth, Edmond de, 14. 

Thorpe, Johan de, 15, 22, 23, 27. 

Tichemerssh, Johan, 22, 27, see Tysch- 
emerssh. 

Tipet, John, 57. 

Topclyf, William, 41, 65. 

Torperle, Richard, 12, 15, 22, 27. 

Tresilian, Robert, 37, 45. 

Tychemerssh, John de, see Tiche- 
merssh, 15. 

Tyndale, Andrew, 13. 



Ursewyk, Robert, 12. 
Usk, Thomas, 63, 71. 
Vere, Robert de, 36, 38, 61, 71. 
Vynour, Robert, 11. 
Waffrer, Richard, see Markham, Rich- 
ard, 11. 
Wake, Hugh, 10, 15, 21, 26, 27. 

Joan, wife of, 26. 
Walssh, Wauter, 15, 18, 21, 26, 27. 

Joan, wife of, 26. 
Walworth, William de, 42, 43, 45 ff., 

63, 65. 
Warde, John, 42, 46. 
Whithors, Walter, 11, 14, 19, 21, 23, 
26, 28 ff. 

Mabel, wife of, 26, 29. 
Wirle, Richard, 12, 16, 27. 
Wyght, Walter, 26. 

Margaret, wife of, 26. 
Yardley, Adam, 62, 67. 
Ybernia, Cornelius de, 11. 
York, William de, 11. 
Zouche, Robert la, 15, 19. See Souch. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 999 045 ei 



